get_cities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions it's a reference/directory search (implying read-only), but doesn't state whether partial matches are supported, case sensitivity, language handling, pagination, or response format. For a lookup tool it's minimally descriptive but leaves significant behavioral unknowns unaddressed.

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 zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple single-parameter lookup tool. Being front-loaded with the search verb makes the purpose immediately clear. However, given the minimal content, one could argue it under-specifies, but for a straightforward query tool this length is reasonable.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, this is moderately complete. The tool's apparent simplicity (one query param) means limited complexity to document. However, the lack of any behavioral detail (match semantics, return format, limits) leaves some gaps, and with no annotations or output schema, the description is the only documentation. It's adequate but not rich.

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% — the single 'query' parameter is documented as 'Название города или его часть для поиска' (city name or part of it for searching). The description adds nothing beyond the schema's explanation of the parameter. Since coverage is fully high, baseline 3 applies; the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but the schema already handles it adequately.

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 'Поиск городов в справочнике Деловых Линий' clearly states the verb (поиск/search) and resource (города в справочнике Деловых Линий - cities in the Business Lines directory). It distinguishes the resource as a reference directory lookup. However, it doesn't specify the scope or return details, and the sibling list includes get_terminals which is analogous but for a different resource, so some differentiation exists by resource type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like get_terminals (a related directory lookup), the description doesn't clarify when cities vs terminals are relevant, or mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The 'Деловых Линий' hint suggests it's for a specific shipping company's directory, but no explicit usage context or when-not-to-use is given.

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