company_registry_cities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that 'Results are cached for 5 minutes,' which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it doesn't describe return format, pagination/limit behavior, or error handling for invalid county codes, leaving some gaps for a lookup tool with no annotation coverage.

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 short, purposeful sentences with zero filler. Each sentence adds value: what it does, when to use it, and a behavioral note about caching. Perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose stated immediately.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter lookup tool with a clear read-only purpose, the description is complete enough. It identifies the use case, documents the cache behavior, and the schema covers both parameters. No output schema means the agent gets no return-format detail, but for a city-list lookup that's a minor gap. Slightly more on county code format validation would improve it.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (q as optional search filter, county as code or name with examples). The description adds context about the optional filtering behavior and caches the data, but doesn't materially extend beyond the schema's existing parameter documentation.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Get a list of cities for a given Romanian county'. It specifies the geographic scope (Romanian counties) and the optional filter behavior. It's well-differentiated from its sibling company_registry_search, which handles broader company lookups, while this tool is specifically for city lists.

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?

States a concrete use case: 'Useful for address auto-complete when creating clients or companies.' It clearly implies when to invoke this tool. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool or exclusion cases, but the use case framing provides adequate contextual guidance given the sibling set.

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