xmlstock_wordstat_regions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the paid nature, the 24h cache for region names, and the additional paid request on cold cache—good transparency. It does not mention auth requirements, error cases, or rate limits, but covers the most critical behavioral traits.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides return format and a key warning. Every sentence adds value; no filler or repetition.

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 output schema, the description adequately specifies the return structure and important usage caveats. It lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, but the context signals and sibling names help. It is fairly complete for a simple two-parameter tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%: the 'account' parameter is described in the schema, but 'query' only has minLength. The description mentions 'для фразы' (for a phrase) which hints at the query parameter but does not clarify format or semantics for either parameter. It adds little value beyond the schema.

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 returns regional demand distribution for a phrase ('Распределение спроса по регионам для фразы'), specifies the exact return shape, and distinguishes it from siblings by noting it is paid and more expensive than top/dynamics. This is a specific verb+resource+scope.

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 use when regional breakdown is needed and hints at cost trade-offs ('дороже топа/динамики'). It also warns about an extra paid regionsTree request on cold cache, which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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