Search cities and zones

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavior: results are slugs, and zones are encoded in a specific hyphenated format (e.g. 'firenze-zona-campo-di-marte'), which the agent needs in order to interpret and reuse results. Return format nuance (partial matches, empty results) is not covered.

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 short blocks: purpose, workflow handoff, examples. Nothing is wasted and the most important information (what it returns and how to use it) is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, return type, and the exact downstream usage. The only minor omission is behavior on zero or multiple matches, which is not critical for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns extra credit by showing that the query accepts both plain city names and zone-style strings, with multiple examples ('firenze', 'milano', 'sesto fiorentino') that clarify the free-text format beyond the single schema example.

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?

Specific verb (Find) plus resource (Italian cities and zones covered by cup24.it) and the return value (slugs). This is distinct from cup24_search and cup24_get_availability, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without reading schemas.

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 the downstream step: use the returned slug as the 'city' argument in cup24_get_availability, and explains how zones narrow the search. It doesn't state when to prefer this over the sibling cup24_search, which keeps it below a 5.

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