Cities

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value the annotations don't: concrete id mappings (392 Tehran, 468 Mashhad, 240 Isfahan) and the behavioral difference between the search and non-search paths. It says nothing about ordering, pagination or empty-result behavior.

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 dense sentences with zero filler; the consumption context is front-loaded and the mode switch follows. Every clause carries information.

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 usefully signals that responses are city id/name pairs via the inline examples, and explains both modes. The only real gap is the undocumented `limit` behavior and result ordering for the browse mode.

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 50% — `search` is documented in the schema, `limit` is not. The description compensates by making the search/no-search branch semantics explicit and by hinting at the default listing behavior, though the `limit` parameter remains unaddressed.

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 resource (city ids) and its exact role: the `city` filter for tb_search, tb_sellers and tb_stores. It also names which siblings consume these ids, so the agent can place the tool in the workflow immediately.

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?

Explains the two invocation modes clearly: with `search` it resolves a name to a city, without it returns the most visited cities. It also names the downstream tools that need these ids. It stops short of an explicit 'call this before X' instruction or any exclusion, so it's strong context rather than complete routing guidance.

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