retrieve_data_center_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the underlying endpoint ([GET /v1/data-centers]) and states that region data accompanies each entry, which is useful given there is no output schema, but pagination behavior, default page size, and auth requirements are all undisclosed.

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?

Two short sentences, nothing wasted, and the resource is front-loaded. Minor redundancy in that the leading 'List data centers' largely restates the tool name and annotation title, but the body is efficient.

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, zero-required-parameter list tool with 100% schema coverage and full annotation coverage, an agent can invoke it correctly. However, with no output schema, the description should say more about what a result contains (fields, region nesting) and whether results are paginated, both of which are left to guesswork.

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%, so all eight optional filters (name, slug, regionName, regionSlug, page, size, orderBy, x-trace-id) are already documented, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds nothing about how these filters combine or which is preferred, and notably does not clarify the schema's ambiguous 'Filter for Object Storages regions' wording on the name parameter.

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 pairs a specific verb with a specific resource ('List data centers') and adds that regions are returned, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It is distinguishable from siblings by the data-center resource, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with adjacent list tools such as retrieve_object_storage_list or retrieve_dns_zones_list, even though the filter params hint at overlap.

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 mention of prerequisites, and no exclusion or pointer to an alternative tool. The agent must infer from the resource name alone that this is the enumeration call for data centers.

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