Cities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description's only added value is workflow context (these ids feed `city` arguments) plus three sample mappings; it says nothing about how results are ordered, paged, or capped.

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?

A single compact sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical example IDs are genuinely useful for grounding the identifier format, though they are an arbitrary three-city sample that could mislead about coverage.

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 and half the parameters undocumented, the description should explain that the tool returns a list of cities with their ids and how `search`/`limit` shape that list. Instead it only asserts the id mapping, leaving the agent to infer the return shape and filtering behavior.

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 only 50%: `search` is documented in the schema, but `limit` (default 10, max 50) has no description anywhere. The description mentions neither parameter and does not compensate for the gap by explaining filtering by Persian name or result limiting.

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?

The description states the concrete resource (city ids) and the reason it exists (to be fed into `city` arguments of other tools), which distinguishes it from siblings like tb_stores or tb_products. It lacks an explicit verb describing the operation (list vs. search), so an agent knows what it yields but not exactly what it does.

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?

The phrase 'for `city` arguments' implies when to call it: whenever a `city` parameter is needed elsewhere. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. omitting the argument to get defaults), and no statement that omitting `search` returns the most visited cities.

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