list_attorney_cities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the output format (city names with attorney counts) and implies a read-only list operation. It does not mention potential limitations like data freshness or whether cities with zero attorneys are omitted (though implied), but it's adequate for a simple tool.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and output. The second sentence adds usage context without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully explains what it does and what it returns (cities with attorney counts). It provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly without any additional requirements.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description requires no parameter explanation, and the input schema is empty, making it clear no arguments are needed. The description adds no parameter details because none exist.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('List'), resource ('all Colorado cities'), and output ('count of attorneys in each city'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_city_review_leaderboard by focusing on attorney presence rather than reviews.

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 provides a clear use case ('discovering which cities have coverage'), giving agents a reason to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, lacking the explicit differentiation seen in top-tier examples.

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