get_cities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It describes the data as 'raw location records' and optional includes, which hints at read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive, requires no special permissions, or whether it has rate limits. The lack of explicit behavioral disclosure leaves gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that packs purpose and key features without redundancy. It avoids filler words and front-loads the core action ('Get city catalog for lookups'). Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the 5 parameters, zero annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview but omits details like pagination semantics, response structure, and differentiation from similar tools like 'search_shelters'. It sufficiently suggests the tool's role as a catalog lookup but lacks completeness for full autonomous use.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the base expectation is 3. The description adds value by explaining the context: 'raw location records with optional translations, coordinates, and countdown times' directly clarifies what the 'include' parameter yields. This goes beyond the schema's 'Comma-separated' description, enhancing understanding.

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 city catalog for lookups - raw location records'. It specifies the resource (city catalog) and the action (get), and distinguishes from sibling 'get_stats_cities' by emphasizing 'raw' data. The inclusion of optional fields (translations, coordinates, countdown) further clarifies the scope.

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 implies use for lookups but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_shelters' or 'get_stats_cities'. It lacks guidance on prerequisites, when not to use it, or which sibling to choose for specific needs. The phrase 'for lookups' provides minimal context but no exclusions.

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