Look up provinces and cities

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses the result shape (provinces only vs provinces plus matching cities) and the data-quality asymmetry between providers, which is genuinely useful. It does not mention result caps or ordering, a minor omission.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the downstream-consumer rationale, then the query/no-query behavior. Every sentence carries information, though the provider advice is stated twice in slightly different phrasing, which could be tightened into one sentence.

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 two-optional-parameter lookup with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: the meaning of each provider value, the effect of omitting or supplying a query, and which tools consume the returned names.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the query parameter's conditional effect on output breadth, and the practical reason to prefer provider='bimebazar' over the default 'all'. It stops short of adding syntax details for Persian vs Latin matching beyond what the schema already states.

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 concrete verb and resource (look up provinces and cities), plus the distinguishing scope: it returns each marketplace's own identifiers side by side. It also names the consuming tools (ins_quote_fire, ins_claim_centers), so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening the 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 conditional guidance: use provider='bimebazar' when only BimeBazar values are needed, because Azki ids are unused by other tools. It also explains the two calling modes — no query lists provinces, a query returns matching provinces and cities — leaving no ambiguity about when to pass which parameter value.

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