list_supported_regions

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

The description explains the output type (structured list with countries, sub-regions, and standards), but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or mention authentication or rate limits. With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it adds value but lacks full transparency.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance, then output description. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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 list tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers when to use, what input is needed, and what output looks like. It is complete for its 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'for a specific trade' which aligns with the trade parameter, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema's enum and description for trade or api_key. No additional param guidance given.

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 tool lists jurisdictions and regions for a specific trade, using specific verb 'Lists' and resource 'jurisdictions and regions'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as a precursor to other tools.

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 tells agents to use this tool before calling others to confirm region support or discover available regions, providing clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools.

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