find_regions

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it implicitly establishes a read-only reference lookup and documents the accepted query forms (name, numeric code, abbreviation). It does not disclose matching semantics — e.g. whether 'мск' is exact or substring, and whether one query can return multiple regions — which is the main behavioral unknown for a lookup 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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, the purpose front-loaded and the parameter forms immediately after. Every clause adds information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and for a one-parameter lookup the definition is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is match behavior and result multiplicity, which matter for a filter-value resolver and are not covered anywhere.

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% — the single 'query' parameter has no schema description — so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates the three accepted value shapes with concrete examples (77, мск, спб, мо). Only the matching mode (exact vs partial, case sensitivity) is left unspecified.

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 the resource and its role concretely: RF regions used as search-filter values, so an agent knows this is a reference lookup rather than a data search. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like find_categories, but the resource is specific enough to select it confidently.

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?

'Для фильтра поиска' implies the context of use (resolving a region filter value before calling search tools), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative among the siblings. Usage must be inferred from the phrase rather than stated.

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