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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for disclosing behavior. It indicates a read-only operation via 'Returns,' but does not mention potential limitations such as ordering, result size, or whether any authentication is required. This is a clear gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the primary purpose and add a practical use case. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The simple nature of the tool (no params, no output schema) means the description covers the core functionality well. However, it could have elaborated on the return format (e.g., list of strings) or any guaranteed ordering, so it isn't perfect.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the empty input schema fully describes the interface. According to guidelines, 0 parameters receives a baseline score of 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific details 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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource as 'distinct cities served by public Lead Stampede clients.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_client and list_business_types, which have different purposes.

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 states it is 'useful for discovering which locations have businesses in the directory,' which gives clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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