get_top_regions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the output (top regions by unique sessions) but does not describe pagination, sorting direction, timezone handling, data granularity, or potential limitations. It adds minimal value beyond what the name implies.

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 concise sentence that efficiently states the core function. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the key outcome. It could arguably be more informative, but as far as conciseness goes, it is well-structured.

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?

The tool has 11 parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides minimal context about expected return format or how filters interact. It does not explain what 'regions' means, how 'unique sessions' are counted, or what the response will look like. Given the complexity, the description is incomplete.

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 all 11 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, and this is acceptable given the high schema coverage. Baseline 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 identifies the tool's output: top regions ranked by unique session count over a period. The verb is implied ('get'), but the resource (regions) and metric (unique sessions) are explicit. It partially distinguishes from siblings like get_top_countries, though not explicitly, so it lacks full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or relationships to sibling tools such as get_top_countries. The usage context is only minimally implied by the tool name and description.

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