search_cities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains that cities can survive multiple political entities, but lacks disclosure of auth needs, rate limits, default behavior (e.g., no parameters), or performance. The tool appears to be a read-only search, but not explicitly stated.

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 paragraph of three sentences, front-loaded with the main action and filters. It is efficient with no obvious redundancy, though a slightly more structured format could improve readability.

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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers main filters but omits return value details, pagination behavior, and default search scope. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 71% (high), so baseline is 3. The description lists filter types ('anno di attività', 'tipo funzionale', etc.) which map directly to schema properties. It adds no significant meaning beyond schema descriptions, except the contextual note about political entities, which is not parameter-specific.

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 searches historical cities with specific filters (year, functional type, political entity, bbox). It explains the distinction from capital_* entities, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like 'fuzzy_search'.

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 implies usage via listing filters but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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