zomato_cities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that the directory is curated and non-exhaustive, that some smaller markets resolve without appearing, that caller-supplied slugs can be valid even if not listed, and that the endpoint is credential-free. This goes well beyond a generic 'list cities' statement and gives an agent useful expectations about scope and validity.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the downstream-consumer relationship and then two important caveats about completeness and slug validity. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a tool with zero required parameters and one optional, schema-documented filter, the description covers what the endpoint returns, its scope, its caveats, and its credential requirements. No output schema exists, but an agent has everything needed to select and 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents q as a case-insensitive substring match against name or slug, with omission returning the full list. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List Zomato's curated directory of major cities,' then sharpens it to 'major Indian cities.' It also distinguishes the tool from an exhaustive directory and names the sibling tools that consume its city values, so an agent can tell exactly what this endpoint provides.

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 clearly frames this as 'the discovery source for the city value used by' the Zomato family of tools, telling an agent when to call it. It also warns that the directory is not exhaustive and that known city slugs may still be valid even if absent, which helps agents avoid wrongly rejecting input. It does not explicitly state 'when not to use' or name a competing alternative, but the downstream references provide strong context.

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