search_cities

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states the operation is read-only, describes the one-representative-asset behavior, and specifies the return shape. This goes beyond the tool name and gives an agent reliable behavioral expectations.

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 compact and well-structured, with the core purpose first, a useful sibling comparison second, and return format last. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant or vague wording.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only search operation with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what is returned, how cities are selected, the comparison to a sibling tool, and the read-only nature, leaving no meaningful gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate since nothing more is needed.

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 returns every city in the library, with one representative asset per city. It also differentiates itself from search_explore by noting the lack of a minimum-asset threshold, making its purpose specific and distinct among sibling tools.

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 explicitly identifies when to use this tool: to answer 'which places are in this library?'. It also contrasts with search_explore, giving a concrete alternative and explaining the key difference, which is strong usage guidance.

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