list_supabase_regions

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

The annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is a pre-step for create_supabase_project, the returned region id should be passed through unchanged, and the tool should be used to surface choices rather than default. This goes beyond the annotation baseline without contradicting it.

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 concise sentences front-load the verb, resource, and context, then add the key usage rule. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 lightweight lookup tool with one fully documented parameter, explicit annotations, and an output schema, nothing essential is missing. The description also covers the important pre-call behavior and user-preference handling, making it complete in context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single parameter is already fully documented as 'Supabase integration instance ID (from list_integration_instances)'. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning, but the schema carries the burden sufficiently; baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the regions Staticbot supports when creating a customer-owned Supabase project.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like create_supabase_project and list_supabase_projects by narrowing it to region listing and project creation context.

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?

It gives explicit sequencing: 'Call this before create_supabase_project' and says to use the selected region id unchanged. It also provides behavioral guidance for the ambiguous case where the user has no location preference: explain options rather than silently choosing one.

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