get_domain_regions_count

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 does well by describing what the tool returns ('keyword count by country, regional performance comparison, and identifies primary market'), which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error conditions that would be helpful for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the most critical information ('REQUIRED FIRST STEP...'). All sentences earn their place by explaining purpose, usage context, and return values. It could be slightly more concise by combining some clauses, but overall it's well-structured with no wasted words.

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 complexity (regional analysis with 3 parameters) and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the tool returns. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the format/structure of the return data (e.g., is it a list, object, or table?) and any behavioral constraints. The description is mostly complete but has minor gaps in fully documenting the tool's behavior.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add specific parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (domain, sort, order). It mentions 'domain keyword presence' which relates to the domain parameter, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, default behaviors, or practical usage examples that would enhance understanding beyond the schema's technical definitions.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('determines optimal regional database', 'analyzing domain keyword presence', 'identifies which regional database contains the most keyword data') and distinguishes it from siblings by positioning it as a 'REQUIRED FIRST STEP ONLY IF DOMAIN ANALYSIS' for subsequent domain analysis tools. It goes beyond the name to explain the core function of regional optimization for keyword data analysis.

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 explicit usage guidance: it states this is a 'REQUIRED FIRST STEP ONLY IF DOMAIN ANALYSIS' and explains its role in 'ensuring subsequent analysis uses the correct market context.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool (as a prerequisite for domain analysis) versus when not to use it (for non-domain analysis tasks), and implies alternatives would be other domain analysis tools that follow this initial step.

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