Get 360° Profile for a Northern Cyprus District

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context about returned metrics (active listings, prices, yields, personas) without contradicting annotations. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or data freshness, but the annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and contents, followed by a clear usage recommendation. No redundant words, every sentence adds value.

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?

With an existing output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. The description is sufficient given the tool's complexity and annotations. It could mention that the output is open-world (per annotation) but overall is complete enough.

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 50% (district has a description, city does not). The description does not explain either parameter further, relying on the schema. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but it does not, leaving ambiguity about city values (list in schema) and district format.

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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly names the resource 'comprehensive profile for a single district', listing exact metrics. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'compare_cities' by advising to use it after that tool narrows the city.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use after compare_cities narrows the city.' which provides clear context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not include when-not-to-use or alternative tools for similar purposes.

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