registry

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

While the description establishes the domain (URnetwork VPN), it provides no behavioral details beyond the high-level 'Get' operation. With zero annotations to rely on, the description fails to disclose return format (simple list vs. detailed objects), pagination behavior, rate limits, or what 'available' specifically means (online? accessible to user?).

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 single sentence is appropriately concise with no redundancy, though its extreme brevity leaves significant informational gaps. It successfully front-loads the core verb and resource without wasting tokens.

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 has only one well-documented parameter (100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable context. However, it omits what constitutes a 'provider location' (city, country, server ID) and what the empty query behavior returns (mentioned only in schema).

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?

With schema coverage at 100%, the schema fully documents the 'query' parameter including fuzzy matching and empty query behavior. The description adds no parameter guidance beyond what the schema provides, meriting the baseline score.

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?

Uses specific verb 'Get' and clear resource 'URnetwork VPN provider locations'. The scope is understood as a retrieval operation. No siblings exist to differentiate from, but the description clearly communicates the tool's function.

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?

Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain when to use specific location queries versus empty queries (though the schema hints at this). No sibling tools exist to differentiate against.

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