get_rt_project_regions_list

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 effectively describes the tool as a read operation ('Get') and explicitly states 'does not consume API credits', which is crucial behavioral context not inferable from the schema. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some gaps.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently lists the returned data fields. The second sentence adds critical behavioral information without redundancy. Every part earns its place, making it appropriately sized and zero-waste.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it specifies the purpose, data returned, and key behavioral trait (no API credit consumption). However, it lacks output format details (e.g., structure of the list) and error scenarios, which could be helpful despite the absence of an output schema.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'projectId' documented as 'Project identifier'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('Get') and resource ('list of regions configured for a rank tracker project'), specifying the exact data returned (region ID, status, SERP type, device type, search engine, location details). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_rt_projects_list' (lists projects) and 'get_rt_project_status' (gets project status), making the purpose specific and well-differentiated.

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 implies usage when needing region details for a rank tracker project, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_domain_regions_count' or 'get_rt_project_status'. It mentions 'does not consume API credits', which offers some context but lacks clear when/when-not scenarios or named alternatives.

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