GetRegionsId

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieval and optional expansions/field selection, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a read operation, though it correctly implies a non-destructive action without contradiction.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by optional features. Both sentences are relevant, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating mandatory vs. optional aspects.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic retrieval action but misses critical context like response format, error cases, authentication needs, and detailed parameter usage, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation in a complex API environment.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for its 2 parameters (id and fields), and the description only vaguely references 'expand the region's relations or select the fields' without explaining what 'fields' entails (e.g., format, allowed values) or providing examples. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, insufficient to compensate for the low coverage.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('a region by its ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetRegions' (which likely lists regions) or 'GetRegionsId' (which appears to be the same tool based on naming), leaving room for ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'GetRegions' for listing regions or other 'Get...Id' tools for different resources. It mentions optional expansions and field selection but doesn't clarify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts with siblings.

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