topvisor_list_regions

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

Despite no annotations, the description details the underlying API endpoint (get/projects_2/projects with show_searchers_and_regions=2), the mapping from region_key to region_index, and warns against confusing the two. It fully discloses the tool's behavior and common pitfalls.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then critical usage warning, an example, and a note about the API endpoint. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary fluff, making it easy to parse.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description fully explains the output (region_key and region_index), their significance, and provides an example mapping. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the single parameter (project_id) with a description, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the context to use the parameter (after adding regions) and the importance of the returned values, moving the score above baseline.

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 clearly states the verb 'list', the resource 'configured searchers and regions', and the context 'for a project'. It specifies the return fields (region_key and region_index), and is distinct from sibling tools like topvisor_add_region or topvisor_check_positions.

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?

It explicitly says 'Always call this tool after adding regions to get the correct region_index values' and explains the critical distinction between region_key and region_index with an example mapping. This provides strong when-to-use guidance.

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