list_supported_cities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. The 'verified' qualifier adds a curation trait, but the description doesn't disclose whether the list is exhaustive, ordered, or paginated, nor potential size. For a zero-parameter read-only listing tool this is a modest but acceptable contribution.

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?

One sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource are front-loaded and the search_properties linkage is a single efficient clause. Every word contributes.

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-param tool with an output schema, the return format needn't be spelled out, and the description states what is returned (city slugs and property types) and how it relates to a sibling. The only minor gap is not explicitly naming that slugs feed search_properties' city parameter, though 'usable by' conveys it.

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 schema has zero parameters and trivially 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. There are no inputs for the description to explain, and none are missing; the description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than nonexistent parameters.

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 a specific verb ('List') paired with a distinct resource ('verified city slugs and property types') and anchors it to a sibling tool ('usable by search_properties'). It's immediately distinguishable from get_listing_details, watch-management, and account_status 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 phrase 'usable by search_properties' implies the agent should call this before search_properties to obtain valid filter values, which is a useful context clue. However, it never states an explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use, nor does it reference alternatives, leaving invocation timing to inference.

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