Get regions

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that results include id, name, and type, and that filtering is case-insensitive. This adds moderate value beyond the annotations but does not disclose additional traits like pagination or rate limits.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action and filter option, followed by practical context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, its filter, and its use case. No output schema is present, so the description adequately covers the return structure by listing fields.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (limit, query) well-documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the filtering capability but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 that the tool lists VK Ads geo regions with specified fields (id, name, type) and supports optional filtering by name substring. It also explains the practical need for region IDs in ad group targeting, making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like get_statistics or list_ad_groups.

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 a clear use case (obtaining region IDs for ad group geo targeting) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context is sufficient for an agent to understand the intended usage.

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