angi_list_cities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds valuable behavioral context: 'Reads Angi's public sitemap directly — no browser bridge required,' revealing the data source and mechanism, which is beyond the annotations and helps set expectations about speed and dependencies.

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 core action, and every clause earns its place. It states the purpose, adds usage guidance, and notes a key implementation detail without redundancy or 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 description covers purpose, usage, and data source, which is solid for a read-only list tool. There is no output schema, so explaining return values isn't strictly required, but the description could hint at the output structure (e.g., list of slugs) or note if the result might be large. Still, the given details are sufficient for most use cases.

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 100%, with each parameter already documented (trade, state, contains). The description reinforces that 'trade' is the required scope ('for one trade') and implies slug usage, but adds little beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the weight.

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: 'List every US state/city that Angi publishes pages for, for one trade.' It uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('US state/city') and scope ('for one trade'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like angi_list_trades which lists trades.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use it to confirm a city slug exists before searching, or to discover nearby cities.' This provides concrete guidance on appropriate contexts and implies an alternative (searching) where this tool is a prerequisite, going beyond generic instructions.

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