get_regions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable context: an input limit of 1000 IDs, the HTTP method (POST), and an access tier ('readonly-owner'). However, it does not disclose error behavior, response format details, or confirm absence of side effects beyond the implied read-only nature. This is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus two short tags. It front-loads the core action and resource, includes the endpoint, and notes the access tier without any fluff. Every word contributes.

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 single-parameter batch fetch with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what it retrieves, the input limit, the HTTP mapping, and the tier. 'Full region records' hints at the return value. It could mention alternatives or error handling, but overall it is complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema defines only a 'regionIDs' array with no descriptions. The description compensates by explaining the parameter's purpose (region records) and the maximum count (1000), adding meaning beyond the raw type. With only one parameter, this is sufficient.

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 ('Get'), the resource ('full region records'), and the specific input scope ('up to 1000 region IDs'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_regions, which imply searching rather than direct ID-based retrieval. The endpoint mapping adds clarity.

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 implies usage when you have a list of region IDs, which is distinct from searching. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'use search_regions to find regions by criteria') or state when not to use this tool. The tier hint provides some context but not exclusionary guidance.

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