geo_search_regions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the fuzzy-search behavior, the all-regions default when 'nom' is omitted, and the row cap with a useful real-world sizing detail about France's region count.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses brief bullet-style argument explanations. Every sentence adds useful information without unnecessary detail.

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 low-complexity search/list tool with only two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the key behavior and edge cases. It does not mention pagination or exact-match alternatives, but those are not essential for correct invocation here.

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 0%, so parameter documentation in the description is essential. It adds meaningful semantics: 'nom' filters by name when set and returns everything when omitted, and 'limit' caps results.

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 uses clear verbs 'List' and 'fuzzy-search' with a clear resource ('regions'), making it clear this tool is for listing all regions or searching by name. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools targeting different geographic objects such as communes and departements.

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 clear parameter-level guidance: set 'nom to filter by name, omit it to return all regions, and use 'limit' to cap rows. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings like 'geo_get_region' or explain when to prefer this search tool over exact-lookup alternatives.

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