Get a one-city profile

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true. The description reinforces 'Read-only, no side effects' and adds behavioral details like data freshness and the return type (text summary + structured JSON). This adds value beyond annotations.

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?

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose and content, second gives usage guidance, third declares side effects and output format. No wasted words, well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (single parameter, output schema present), the description covers all necessary context: input, output format (text + JSON), read-only nature, and data freshness. Output schema handles return details, so description is fully adequate.

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?

The description does not add meaning beyond the input schema for the single 'city' parameter. Schema coverage is 100% and includes its own description. The description mentions 'slug' implicitly but does not elaborate further. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool provides a 'concise profile of one city' with specific categories (currency, tax, costs, safety-net), and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'compare_cities' by noting it is 'lighter' and for single-place queries.

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 description explicitly guides usage: 'use when the user is asking about one place rather than a comparison.' It also contrasts with 'compare_cities' as a lighter alternative, giving clear context for selection.

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