numbeo_cost_of_living_rankings

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It mentions the tool returns six indices and supports both current and historical snapshots. However, it does not disclose ordering, pagination, rate limits, or data freshness beyond 'continuously-updated'.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff. First sentence states action, second details output, third clarifies accessibility. Each sentence earns its place. Front-loaded with the verb 'Get'.

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?

Given the presence of many sibling tools, the description lacks guidance on when to choose this ranking tool vs city-specific or country-specific tools. Also, without an output schema, a brief description of the ranking structure (e.g., list of cities with scores) would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by clarifying that scope defaults to 'current' and period is required for historical, which matches the schema. It also enumerates the returned indices, adding value beyond parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states it retrieves the global Numbeo cost-of-living city ranking and lists the indices returned. It also mentions current vs historical scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like numbeo_cost_of_living_country or numbeo_indices_rankings, though 'city ranking' implies broad comparison.

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 notes that data is credential-free and public, suggesting no authentication. It implies usage for getting global city rankings but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., for city-level vs country-level) or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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