List cities

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent read operation, so the description is not burdened with the safety profile. It adds meaningful context by disclosing the return fields (id, names, center coordinates) and a practical caveat about coordinate precision.

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 compact sentences front-load the core purpose and then add one actionable usage note. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 low complexity, output schema, and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. The main remaining gap is that it does not help the agent choose this tool over nearby location siblings such as find_location or reverse_geocode.

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%, and the only parameter (query) is fully documented in the schema with examples. The description adds no additional filtering syntax or behavior beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (list cities) and scopes it to cities Snappfood serves, with the returned fields named. It is clear enough to distinguish from food/market tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate from location siblings like find_location or reverse_geocode.

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?

Adds a useful usage tip about treating center coordinates as a rough delivery point when the user only names a city. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no exclusions relative to the many sibling tools.

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