list_centers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only notes that centers are 'grouped by city or area'. It does not describe ordering, result size, whether grouping is fixed or selectable, or any operational limits. Since the output schema exists, return-structure details are off-loaded there, but the description still adds little behavioral nuance beyond the bare operation.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words; the verb and resource are front-loaded ahead of the grouping detail. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, though slightly more structure (e.g., clarifying how grouping works) could nudge it higher.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema that presumably documents return values, the description covers the core purpose adequately. The phrase 'grouped by city or area' introduces minor ambiguity about whether grouping is a fixed hierarchy or a mode, and since there are no parameters to select a mode, this is left for the output schema to resolve. Reasonably complete but with a small gap.

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 takes zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are no properties). Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate — there is nothing for the description to clarify, and the mention of 'grouped by city or area' hints at the fixed behavior but requires no parameter explanation.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('PureGym centers'), and a distinguishing detail (grouping by city or area). This differentiates it from siblings like get_capabilities, list_class_types, and search_classes, which target entirely different resources, so an agent can reliably select this tool for center discovery. It lacks explicit sibling naming but the resource distinction is obvious enough to make the purpose clear.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. The only signal is the resource name itself, so an agent must infer that this tool is for listing centers rather than, say, searching classes at a center. No guidance distinguishes appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

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