tool_score_nomad_cities

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. While the tool appears read-only, the description does not explicitly state safety or side effects. It adds context about combining data but lacks explicit behavioral guarantees.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value, explaining inputs, defaults, and a key note (no API key). No wasted words.

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?

While input parameters are well-described, the output format is not explained. No output schema exists, so the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., score range, rank order). This lack of output context reduces completeness.

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 0%, so the tool description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining the cities parameter format, month parameter defaults, and weights parameter structure with dimensions. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 purpose: score and rank cities for digital nomad suitability. It lists specific factors (cost, safety, internet, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools like tool_score_destinations by focusing on remote-work criteria.

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 provides context for use (no API key required) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like tool_compare_destinations. It implies usage for nomad suitability, offering clear context without exclusions.

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