resolve_city

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by mentioning the one-week cache and by explaining the `delivery_area` semantics, which helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core lookup purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It avoids repetition of schema details and annotations while still providing useful workflow context.

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 a single documented parameter, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers everything needed: caching behavior, output field semantics, and how the result should be used downstream. Nothing essential is missing.

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% and the name parameter already has a clear example. The description adds value by clarifying that the returned id is meant to be used as `city` in other tools, which goes beyond the schema and helps the agent connect the tool to the broader workflow.

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 action ('Look up Citilink city ids by name') and identifies the resource (Citilink's own directory). It also orients the agent toward how the result is used, clearly differentiating this lookup from the non-city 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 explicitly tells the agent to use the returned id as the `city` parameter in other tools, which is strong usage guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the sibling tools are clearly unrelated and no alternative city-resolution tool exists, so the guidance is sufficient.

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