List cities

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: a dated static snapshot (2026-10-19), the fact that the site exposes no city API, and that unserved cities yield no restaurants. No pagination or auth detail, but little is needed for a static list.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the actionable usage hint, then the staleness caveat. Each sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return contents and does so (center point, delivery flag). Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully documented parameter, an agent has nearly everything needed; only edge details like list size or caching behavior are absent.

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 single 'query' parameter already documents filtering on Persian title or English code with an example. The description adds nothing about the query parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (lists the cities Tapsi Food shows) and goes further by naming what each entry contains: a center point and a delivery flag. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like tf_find_location and tf_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?

Gives a use hint for the returned center ('use the center as a rough delivery point when the user only names a city') and a caveat that unserved cities return no restaurants, but never states when to choose this tool over tf_find_location or tf_reverse_geocode. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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