search_region

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and clearly discloses behavior: results are restricted to atlases actually loaded, coordinates are real, and functional networks are only reported if already computed, otherwise returned as unclassified and never invented. This is a strong provenance guarantee that goes beyond the bare schema.

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 purpose is front-loaded and every sentence adds value for parameter behavior or result guarantees. It is slightly dense and the internal reference 'decision 73' contributes little, but the overall length is appropriate for the two parameters and output semantics.

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 two-optional-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description is complete: all parameters are explained and the semantics of coordinate, reference space, and network classification are stated. Minor gaps are the lack of explicit exclusions/alternatives and any mention of response size or pagination, but these are not critical for this simple lookup.

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 0% and the schema provides only names and nullable string types. The description compensates fully by explaining atlas_id as an atlas filter with a concrete example and default behavior, and network_source as selecting from named classifications with its own default behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: searches real regions loaded in NeuroGraph. The scope is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like search_tract and rendering/connectivity tools, and the description clarifies what each returned region contains.

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?

Provides clear context for the operation (searching loaded regions and their network metadata) and explains the effect of omitting atlas_id. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over an alternative or when not to use it, so the agent must infer selection from the resource type.

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