Список регионов

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it specifies the return fields (id, name, type) and the filtering behavior (by case-insensitive substring). This gives the agent clear behavioral expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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 two short sentences with zero fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage purpose is stated concisely. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 read-only list tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the return structure, filtering capability, and the practical use case (geo-targeting). Annotations cover safety, and the schema covers parameters. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, so both parameters (limit and query) are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 the verb (returns), the resource (geo-regions of VK Ads), and the output structure (id, name, type). It also mentions the optional filtering by name substring. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which deal with region data.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: 'Id регионов нужны для гео-таргетинга группы объявлений' (region ids are needed for geo-targeting an ad group). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since no sibling tool provides similar functionality, this is sufficient.

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