get_regions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and dynamic-data profile. The description adds one useful behavioral detail: the result set is filtered to regions that actually have webcams. It does not discuss language effects or pagination, but given the annotations carry the main behavioral burden, this is adequate.

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 a single sentence of seven words and contains no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core operation and the key qualifier ('with webcams') 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?

For a read-only, single-optional-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it does not clarify how regions relate to continents or countries, but sibling names and the output schema mitigate this ambiguity.

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%: the only parameter, 'lang', is already fully documented as a language code with a default of 'en'. The description adds no additional parameter-level nuance, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('available regions with webcams'). The phrase 'with webcams' adds a meaningful filter that distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_continents or get_countries, and it clarifies what kind of region data is returned.

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 implies the use case: when an agent needs to list regions that have webcam coverage. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_continents, get_countries, or get_webcams_by_location, nor does it mention any exclusion conditions. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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