List Regions For A Company User

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by disclosing the response format (paginated JSON array of Directory records), pagination metadata, and the HTTP method (GET via endpoint). It does not contradict annotations and provides behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, use cases, pagination guidance, required parameters, and API reference. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simple list tool with pagination, the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns, when to use it, pagination control, required parameters, and API location. No output schema is provided, but the description adequately explains the return value (paginated JSON array of Directory records).

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage for all 5 parameters, including descriptions. The description adds minor context: 'Use page and per_page to control pagination; the response includes pagination metadata.' This slightly enhances understanding but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns 'list of Regions for the specified User' and explains use cases like enumerating Directory records, paginated overview, finding IDs, or filtering. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools for a company user (e.g., list_programs_for_a_company_user) by specifying the resource 'Regions' and the context 'Directory records.'

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 context on when to use the tool: 'enumerate Directory records when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It also explains pagination control (page, per_page) and states required parameters. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or suggest alternative tools, which would strengthen guidance.

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