company_registry_cities

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: 'Results are cached for 5 minutes,' which tells the agent about staleness and repeat-call behavior. It does not describe the response shape or ordering, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the filter, use case, and caching note. Every sentence adds information an agent would act on, with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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, annotation-covered read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers the action, filter, use case, and caching. The only minor gap is that it does not indicate the shape or ordering of returned city entries, which an agent might want for auto-complete rendering.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the county code examples. The description reinforces that the name filter is optional and that the county is required, but adds no syntax, casing, or matching-rule details beyond the schema. 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a list of cities for a given Romanian county.' It also mentions the optional name filter, so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings such as company_registry_search or anaf_nomenclator_localitati, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It provides one concrete usage context — 'Useful for address auto-complete when creating clients or companies' — which implies when to reach for it. However, it gives no exclusions or alternatives, so an agent cannot tell from this text when to prefer company_registry_search, anaf_nomenclator_localitati, or clients_from_registry instead.

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