Поиск регионов

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the semantic context that results feed create_ad_group and that output is limited by the limit parameter, but beyond that it adds little behavioral depth. No contradiction with 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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the most important information (purpose and the downstream create_ad_group link). The second sentence partly restates schema details about the substring filter and limit, which is slightly redundant, but the overall size is well-controlled and nothing is extraneous.

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 lookup with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and result-limiting. The main gaps are minor: no mention of return shape (e.g., list of objects with id/name) and no pointer to get_dictionaries as a potential alternative source of region data.

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%: limit documents its range and default of 50, and query documents substring matching, case-insensitivity, and examples. The description only paraphrases these ('Фильтр — подстрока названия; количество результатов ограничено limit'), adding no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Ищет' — searches), a clear resource (regions), and a specific deliverable: the regionIds needed by create_ad_group. This makes the tool's purpose concrete and immediately ties it to a downstream consumer, distinguishing it from generic dictionary lookups.

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 identifies the exact usage context — obtaining regionIds for ad group targeting, referencing create_ad_group by name. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., get_dictionaries, which may also contain region data) or state when not to use this tool, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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