get_city

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose safety and behavior. It states a read-only 'search' operation and lists the data included, implying a safe query with no side effects. However, it does not mention potential edge cases, rate limits, or whether partial matches are allowed, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action and expected output fields. No filler words or redundant information.

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 simple one-parameter search tool without an output schema, the description covers the search action and the expected data fields. However, it does not clarify whether the result is a single city or a list, and it omits error or not-found behavior. Given the low complexity, this is a minor gap, so it earns a 4.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter cityName with a clear description. The tool description repeats that a city name is used for searching but adds no additional semantics about format, case sensitivity, or matching behavior, so it does not exceed the baseline schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and names the resource 'city information', explicitly listing the fields (name, country, region, IATA code, geographic coordinates). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_flights, which focus on flights.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling names imply a context of travel-related queries, but the description itself does not state when city lookup is appropriate or mention alternatives. This is implied usage rather than explicit.

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