XMLStock: wordstat regions tree

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds the important behavioral fact that the request is paid ('ПЛАТНО за запрос') and specifies the returned payload (id + name + path). It does not describe authentication requirements or side effects, but the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 compact sentence with the key facts front-loaded: what the tree is, what fields it returns, why it matters, and that it is paid. Every clause contributes information; no filler.

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 parameterless-by-default retrieval tool, the description covers output fields, the region-ID use case, and cost. It does not explicitly state that credentials or authentication are required, but the sibling auth/set_credentials tools and the XMLStock context make this an acceptable gap.

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 covers the only parameter (account) fully with its own description, so the baseline applies. The tool description adds no detail about the account field, but none is needed because the schema already explains the multi-account behavior.

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 identifies a specific resource: the Yandex Wordstat regions tree returned through XMLStock, with id, name, and path fields. It also states its purpose as supplying region IDs for other requests. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with the sibling xmlstock_wordstat_regions, so differentiation is left to the name.

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 phrase 'id для параметра region в других запросах' gives a clear use case: fetch the tree to obtain region IDs for subsequent queries. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives such as xmlstock_wordstat_regions, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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