wolt_cities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the tool returns a list of cities with coordinates, slugs, country codes, timezone, and optionally distance and sorting. It does not mention any side effects (since it's read-only, but no annotation confirms that). The behavior is implied but not explicitly stated that it's a read operation. It also doesn't specify pagination or rate limits, but for a directory listing, the description is decent. Given no annotations, a 3 is reasonable – it covers the primary behavior but not all potential edge cases.

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 concise yet comprehensive, covering the purpose, return contents, usage context, and optional parameters in three sentences. Every sentence adds critical information, no fluff. The structure front-loads the main purpose and then explains the relevance to the rest of the ecosystem.

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 tool is a simple directory listing with no output schema—the description fully explains what is returned (cities, coordinates, slug, country codes, timezone, optional distance) and how to use optional params. It also positions the tool within the Wolt API context pay-as-you-go, which is crucial for agents navigating many siblings. It's complete for an agent to call it correctly without external info.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions: country as optional ISO code, latitude/longitude as reference coordinates required together. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the effect of the reference coordinate (each city carries distance, list sorted nearest-first) and country restriction. It also clarifies why these params exist (for filtering). This goes beyond the schema, which only describes types and constraints, so it adds some value, but the schema already provides decent meaning.

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 the tool lists every city Wolt operates in with coordinates. It identifies the main resource (city directory) and distinguishes it from other Wolt endpoints (e.g., wolt_restaurant, wolt_search) by explaining that this is the discovery step for coordinate-based endpoints. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: as the discovery step for any other Wolt endpoint because they require coordinates. It also mentions the optional country and reference coordinate filters, which guide when to pass parameters. It implies that for other tasks like searching restaurants, you'd use other tools, but it doesn't name alternatives. However, the context is strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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