find_sustainable_regions

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already indicate a safe read operation. The description adds the context of 'carbon neutral and sustainable' but does not clarify the criteria or what the tool actually does beyond that. It is sufficient but not insightful.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose. Every word is relevant, with no extraneous information.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is adequate but thin. It does not explain the return format, ordering, or what constitutes 'sustainable.' More context would improve completeness.

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% with descriptions for both parameters (providers, continents). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, providing no further clarification on parameter usage or behavior.

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 finds 'carbon neutral and sustainable cloud regions,' using a specific verb ('find') and resource ('sustainable regions'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'find_compliant_regions' or 'find_gpu_regions' by focusing on sustainability criteria.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., 'find_compliant_regions', 'find_nearby_regions'). There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where alternatives are preferred.

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