regional_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that each returned location includes an `area` array to reuse verbatim and explains the effect of omitting `location`. It doesn't mention output shape beyond that or any limitations, but it's sufficient for a simple read-only retrieval tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a practical note and compact parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value, with no 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 description covers the core functionality, parameter semantics, and a bonus usage tip. It doesn't elaborate on the full response format or possible error conditions, but for a straightforward regional-data tool, it's adequately complete.

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?

All three parameters are explained beyond the bare schema: `country` gets ISO examples, `category` is tied to `list_categories`, and `location` is described as hierarchical with an example and behavior when omitted. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description 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?

States exactly what it does with a specific verb and resource: 'Get vacancy counts for each sub-region of a given location.' Also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on regional breakdowns and adding a secondary purpose of discovering reusable `area` strings for 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?

Provides clear usage context: when you need sub-regional vacancy counts or exact `area` strings for the `location` param on other tools. It also explains that omitting `location` gives top-level regions, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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