guild_list_voice_regions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds return shape details (regions with id, name, optimal, deprecated, custom) and notes VIP regions, but does not disclose rate limits, permissions, or other behavioral traits. This is a modest addition beyond 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 succinctly organized with bolded Purpose, When to use, and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no unnecessary words or filler.

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 is a simple read-only list operation with one parameter. The description covers purpose, usage, and return format, while annotations cover safety and idempotency. It is fully complete for this level of complexity.

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?

The only parameter, guild_id, is fully described in the schema as 'Guild to query' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information, so it remains at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'List voice regions available to a guild (incl. VIP regions)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'voice_list_regions' by explicitly mentioning guild scope and VIP inclusion.

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 'When to use' section gives a concrete scenario: 'Pick an rtc_region for a voice/stage channel.' This provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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