list_cities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and scope. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, such as the purpose of 'discover available destinations,' but doesn't detail aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior. It doesn't contradict annotations, so it meets the baseline for having 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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information, making it efficient and 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 low complexity (a read-only list operation), rich annotations (covering safety and scope), and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It lacks an output schema, but the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential limitations or result formats, slightly reducing the score.

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%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the 'query' parameter's filtering behavior in more detail). With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.

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's purpose: 'List all cities where tickadoo® has bookable experiences.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('cities'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on destinations rather than experiences. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'search_cities' if they existed, so it's not a perfect 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?

The description provides implied usage context: 'Use to help users discover available destinations.' This suggests it's for discovery purposes, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_experiences' or 'find_nearby_experiences' from the sibling list. No exclusions or clear alternatives are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity.

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