城市列表

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

注解已包含readOnlyHint=true、idempotentHint=true和destructiveHint=false，覆盖了安全性和幂等性。描述额外说明动态住宅产品需指定州/省，这属于参数约束而非行为特性。未披露返回格式或错误处理，但注解已提供足够安全背景，故评3分。

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?

描述仅一句话，简洁无冗余，且将关键约束（动态住宅需指定州/省）前置。虽未分条列出，但信息密度高，结构有效。

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?

工具简单且无输出schema，描述已覆盖核心调用要求（产品、国家、动态住宅需州）。虽然未提及返回结构，但查询城市列表的返回内容可自然推断，且参数均有schema说明，整体信息足够。

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描述覆盖率100%，每个参数（product、state_id、country_id等）都有详细说明，包括产品枚举值映射和必填条件。描述没有额外补充参数语义，但也没有冲突，基础分为3分。

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?

描述明确说明“查询某产品某国家下可选的城市”，动词“查询”配合资源“城市”，并给出条件（产品、国家），与兄弟工具country_list（查国家）和state_list（查州）明显区分。目的清晰且具有区分度。

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?

描述指出“动态住宅产品还要指定州或省”，提供了明确的调用条件，但未提及何时不使用此工具或替代方案（如需要州列表时用state_list）。虽然缺少排除性说明，但已给出关键的使用场景约束。

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