list_locations

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes query behavior, prefecture filtering, and returns fields, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or authentication. The description is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 well-structured: a clear one-line purpose, a labeled Args section, and a Returns statement. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 3 parameters, no required, and an output schema, the description covers usage and expected returns. It could mention pagination behavior (e.g., if results are truncated beyond limit), but is otherwise complete for selection and invocation.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds critical meaning: query is a name filter ranking by similarity, accepts Greek/Latin script, warns about English exonyms; prefecture is case-insensitive substring; limit is max results. This far exceeds minimal schema information.

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 lists EMY forecast locations (live directory, ~1035 points across Greece). The verb 'list' and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like get_forecast by mentioning alternative use for English exonyms.

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?

Provides clear guidance on using query vs prefecture, mentions query behavior (ranks by similarity, accepts Greek/Latin script), and suggests using get_forecast with coordinates for English exonyms. However, it does not explicitly exclude usage of other siblings like get_alerts or get_climate_records.

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