tool_get_cost_of_living

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully describe behavior. It mentions coverage (~270 cities) and that it's free and no auth, but lacks details on output format, error handling for unknown cities, rate limits, or whether it returns raw scores or interpreted results.

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 concise with a clear structure: a one-line differentiator, a catchy phrase, a brief usage note, and parameter explanations. The catchy phrase adds value for understanding the tool's purpose without excessive fluff.

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?

The tool has no output schema and low schema coverage, so the description should provide more context about the return structure. Mentioning 'quality of life scores' without explaining the scale or format leaves the agent guessing about the response shape.

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?

The description provides examples for the 'city' parameter (e.g., 'Lisbon', 'Tokyo', 'San Francisco') and explains 'home_currency' as 'Your home currency (USD, EUR, etc.)', adding significant meaning beyond the schema's property titles and defaults.

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 provides cost-of-living index and quality of life scores for a city, with a catchy phrase and coverage of ~270 cities. It is distinct from sibling tools like tool_convert_currency or tool_score_destinations, which have different focuses.

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 the example 'Your $100/day = lavish in Lisbon, broke in London' and states 'Free, no auth,' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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