apple_maps_guides_cities

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned shape (regions, cities, id, country, coordinates, cover photo) and notes that the region list is dynamic ('and any Apple adds'). It does not comment on pagination, rate limits, authorization, or other side effects, but for a read-only listing tool the explicit 'List' language and output detail are adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is moderately sized and front-loaded: the core purpose comes first, followed by return-field details, then actionable usage instruction. There is minor redundancy in restating 'Apple Guides' content in consecutive sentences, but every sentence earns its place and the text stays well under an unreasonable length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the explanatory burden. It conveys the primary result structure, the dynamic nature of the region list, and how the returned city ids should be used. It does not explain how the optional country parameter affects the result set, which is a minor gap, but the overall definition is still complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the lang and country parameters are already documented with defaults and formatting details. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, and it does not need to because the schema carries that weight. This matches the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a clear verb+resource statement: 'List the regions and cities Apple Guides cover.' It goes on to describe what each city entry contains (id, country, coordinates, cover photo), which makes the function's role in the Guides family understandable. It does not explicitly contrast itself with closely related siblings like apple_maps_guides_lookup or apple_maps_guides_publishers, which keeps it just shy of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives useful practical guidance: pass a returned city id to downstream guide, publisher, or publishers endpoints, and omit it for Worldwide scope. However, it does not describe when to choose this tool over alternatives such as apple_maps_guides_lookup or apple_maps_guides_nearby, nor does it state any exclusions. The context is helpful but implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.