get_departure_cities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It mentions fuzzy matching by Chinese/pinyin/English and a limit parameter, but does not describe the output format, behavior on no matches, or whether results are sorted. Basic behavior is disclosed, but some gaps remain, so a 3.

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 the main purpose front-loaded ('查询携程出发城市ID'), followed by a concise workflow explanation. No redundant words; every phrase 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, when to use, and how the result feeds into other tools. It doesn't detail the response structure, but for a lookup tool this is acceptable. Slightly more could be said about the return format, hence a 4.

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 schema covers both parameters (keyword and limit) with full descriptions, including examples. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 queries Ctrip departure city IDs, using the specific verb '查询' and resource '出发城市ID'. It also explains the workflow of looking up the ID before passing it to search_tours or recommend_tours, which distinguishes it from sibling 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 provides explicit context: 'when user mentions a departure city, call this tool first' (当用户提到某出发城市...先调用本工具). It also explains how the ID is used downstream, but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives like get_filter_options. Clear context, no exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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