Rank cities by composite quality score

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it is 'Read-only, no side effects; returns a text summary plus structured JSON.' This aligns with annotations and adds context about output format.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and then details filters and usage.

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 (4 parameters, nested objects, no required fields), the description covers all aspects: purpose, usage, behavioral traits, parameter details, and output. The presence of an output schema further supports completeness.

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 100%, but the description elaborates on each parameter: it mentions default weights (30,20,15,15,20), explains that filter combinations use intersection, and specifies defaults for scenario fields (e.g., has_partner default false, gross_salary_usd default 100000). This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 uses specific verbs ('rank') and clearly identifies the resource ('cities', 'composite quality-of-life score'). It distinguishes from the sibling `compare_cities` tool by explicitly stating its use for shortlisting across many cities vs. head-to-head comparison.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use this to shortlist across many cities; for a head-to-head between two named cities use compare_cities.' It also clarifies that the same scenario is applied to every city, ensuring comparability.

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