wordstat.regions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only frequency lookup but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, whether the API is the paid Search API, or what the response contains for a nested-object parameter.

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 fragment is short but earns its brevity through under-specification rather than density: the name 'regions' is repeated in the title and the parenthetical, leaving no room for the guidance the tool needs.

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?

A four-parameter tool with a nested object, 50% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema needs a substantive description to be callable correctly. Six words cannot cover the required parameter and behavioral context.

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 only 50%: region_type and params have descriptions, while phrase and devices do not. The description mentions 'region' loosely but adds no syntax, allowed values, or semantics for phrase/devices, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 restates the tool name ('Wordstat: regions') and adds a short hint of what it returns ('frequency by region'). This is minimally informative but does not distinguish it from the sibling wordstat.get_regions_tree or wordstat.top_requests, so an agent still cannot tell which regional wordstat tool to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as wordstat.get_regions_tree or wordstat.top_requests. The phrase 'frequency by region' implies a lookup, but nothing routes the agent between the four sibling wordstat tools.

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