Cities

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the cardinality of the no-arg response (31 provinces), the fields returned (capital city ids, lat/lng), and the interoperability contract with ti_prayer_times. It does not say how `query` interacts with `province` or whether results are truncated.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core capability front-loaded and the two invocation modes separated cleanly. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 does the work of describing return content (ids, lat/lng) and the two result shapes, which is sufficient for a small lookup tool. The only gap is the unexplained `query` parameter behavior, which matters little for a two-parameter reference table.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including `province`'s 'omit to list the 31 provinces' note. The description reinforces the province behavior and adds the downstream id-compatibility meaning, but says nothing about `query` filtering semantics beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 Iran's provinces, or the cities of one province') and pins down the output's purpose by tying it to a named sibling ('the ids ti_prayer_times takes'). An agent can tell instantly this is the lookup prerequisite for prayer times, not a general geographic search.

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?

Explicitly branches on the argument: no arguments yields the 31 provinces with capital city ids; supplying `province` yields that province's cities with coordinates. That is clear when-to-use guidance for the two main modes, though it never mentions the `query` filter or states exclusions relative to other siblings.

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