get-cities

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It tells the core behavior (searching cities and returning IDs), but lacks details about pagination, result limits, or side effects. It is not misleading, but it does not disclose much beyond the basic function.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and criteria, and a second sentence on purpose. Every word earns its place; no repetition of schema details.

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 has 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat minimal. It clarifies the primary use case and return value, but does not mention pagination, sorting, or other filter options, leaving the agent without full context for a more complex search.

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 description coverage is only 45%, and the description partially compensates by listing search criteria (name, zipcode, INSEE code, polygon). However, it does not explain parameters like page, slug, sortByName, or excludeGroupedCities, leaving gaps for an agent to interpret.

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's function: 'Search French cities by name, zipcode, INSEE code, or geographic polygon.' It also specifies the output's purpose ('Returns city IDs needed for property search filters'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search-properties or get-points-of-interest.

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 when to use the tool: when city IDs are needed for property search filters. It provides context by mentioning the search criteria and the output, but it does not explicitly rule out alternatives like location-autocomplete, which could also be used for city lookups.

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