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

The description discloses the output shape (region IDs, display names, endpoints). It does not mention side effects or failure modes, but as a read-only list operation, these are unlikely. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it is sufficient for a safe operation.

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 sentences, directly stating the purpose, output, and usage. No unnecessary words or redundant information. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 list operation, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. It does not mention prerequisites like authentication, but that is likely handled by sibling auth tools. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to decide when to call it.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema_description_coverage is 100%, and the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are no parameters to describe.

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 action ('List available Huawei Cloud regions') and specifies the output ('Returns region IDs, display names, and endpoints'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being focused on region discovery, as opposed to auth, sandbox, or other operations.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when the agent needs to discover available regions before creating resources.' This provides a clear trigger condition and places it in the context of resource creation.

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