Список локаций

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

The annotation readOnlyHint is false, but the description clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Возвращает список'). This is a direct contradiction between the annotation and description, so the transparency score is 1.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately state the action and the useful return fields. No word is wasted, and it is well-structured.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description provides sufficient detail about the return value (code, ISO, availability zones) and the use case. No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden, and it does so effectively.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. According to the rubric, a 0-param tool gets a baseline of 4, which is appropriate here.

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 action ('Возвращает список') and the resource ('доступных локаций и зон доступности'), and lists the specific fields returned. It also mentions its purpose in VPS creation, distinguishing it from other list 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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Нужен для выбора location/availability_zone при создании VPS.' It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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