Find locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the three result kinds, the 'all-cities-of-...' slug convention for provinces, and the fact that Tehran areas include diagonal ones like tehran-shomalgharbi, which shapes how an agent should interpret and reuse returned values.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the enumeration in a second line. Every clause carries usable information — no restatement of the title or annotations.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description adequately covers what comes back (names and slugs of provinces, cities, areas) and the slug formats. It does not say whether results are a flat list or grouped, or how many are returned, which is the only notable gap given the absence of an output schema.

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% and the single 'query' parameter already documents that it takes part of a name and that empty lists provinces. The description adds only indirect meaning by enumerating the kinds being matched; it offers no extra detail on matching behavior (prefix vs substring) beyond the schema's 'Part of a ... name'.

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 the province, city or Tehran area names and slugs') and ties the output directly to a named sibling: the values 'jv_search's city filter accepts'. An agent can distinguish this lookup helper from jv_search without opening either 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 an explicit trigger condition: 'Use when a city name does not resolve', which tells the agent this is a fallback resolution step before calling jv_search. It stops short of stating when not to call it (e.g. when the query is a company or job title), so it is clear but not fully exclusive.

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