bms_get_cities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool returns (regions, cities, codes, slugs) and defines the popular_only parameter's effect (filter to tier-1 cities). This goes beyond the bare schema and gives agents a concrete picture of the result set. While it doesn't mention rate limits or auth, such details are not critical for a simple list endpoint and the output schema likely covers the return structure.

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 efficient. It opens with the action, describes the output, and lists the argument with its effect. There is no redundant filler. The title and body together deliver all necessary information in a few lines, making it easy to parse.

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 lookup tool with a single optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what data is returned, the parameter's role, and the geographic scope. The output schema presumably defines the structure, so nothing essential is missing. It provides sufficient context for correct 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?

The schema only provides the parameter name 'popular_only' with a title and default, giving no semantic description. The tool description compensates by explaining that setting it to True returns only major popular tier-1 metropolitan cities. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the schema, which is essential given the 0% 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get Supported Cities & Regions' and elaborates that it returns all supported regions and major cities in India for BookMyShow, including region codes and URL slugs. This specifies both the verb (get), resource (cities/regions), and the scope (India, BookMyShow). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools that deal with movies, events, showtimes, etc.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: whenever you need the list of supported cities/regions. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the siblings are clearly unrelated, so the usage is evident. There are no exclusions or complex conditions. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' criterion.

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