search_city

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the multi-language search and output fields, but lacks details on potential side effects, permissions, or limits (e.g., rate limits, data freshness). Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes the crucial detail about multi-language support. Perfectly concise.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema or annotations), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose and output usage. However, it could mention whether the search returns multiple cities or if it's a best-match, which would enhance 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% for the single parameter 'query', which is described as a city name. The description adds value by specifying that the name works in any of six languages, which is beyond the schema's basic type/description.

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 function: find a city by name in multiple languages and return coordinates, timezone, and elevation. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by indicating the output is meant to be fed into other tools.

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 implies usage context: when you need location data for other tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear and there are no competing siblings for city search.

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