list_cities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately states the core behavior: listing cities and searching by name. However, it does not mention output format, pagination, or whether an empty search returns all cities, leaving some behavior implicit.

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 concise sentence with no filler, and the core resource is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could add a useful detail about the return value without becoming verbose.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not specify what fields the returned city list includes or how search behaves at boundaries, leaving a moderate gap for an agent interpreting results.

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 input schema documents the one parameter with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond restating the search-by-name functionality. It reinforces the substring search concept but does not provide extra detail, examples, or constraints beyond what the schema already offers.

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 identifies a list operation over Boxberry cities with optional search by name. The resource 'cities' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_points and list_services, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives. Using a noun phrase instead of a verb is slightly weaker, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving Boxberry cities with optional name filtering, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as list_points or zip_check. An agent can infer the usage from the tool name and resource, but exclusions and selection criteria are not stated.

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