Cities

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail beyond them: default ordering ('main cities first'), that `speciality` mode returns doctor counts, and the important caveat that counts cover main cities only while searches may surface doctors elsewhere.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose and output meaning, followed by mode behavior and next steps. No filler; every clause carries actionable 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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't describe return values, and it still covers purpose, mode-dependent behavior, the key caveat, and chaining to sibling tools. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the semantics of `speciality` (returns only cities having such doctors, with counts, main cities only) and the default no-argument behavior of `limit`/`query`.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find a city's slug ... and numeric id') and even names the downstream consumers of each output field (search filters, dt_suggest). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like dt_suggest and dt_neighborhoods without needing to open any schema.

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?

Gives explicit behavioral modes (no arguments vs. with `speciality`) and an explicit follow-up path: 'Next: dt_search_doctors(city=slug) or dt_neighborhoods.' It also warns that the speciality filter is incomplete because 'a search may still find doctors elsewhere.' It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, so it falls just short of a 5.

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