search_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 includes a [tier: readonly-owner] tag and an endpoint mapping, which give some safety context. However, it does not disclose behavior such as pagination, error handling, or the effect of empty filter arrays, beyond returning IDs.

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 sentence that conveys the core action, result, endpoint, and a safety tier. Each element earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: parameter semantics, usage context, and relationship to sibling tools are all unaddressed. It only covers the basic return type, making it incomplete for confident tool invocation.

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 has two array parameters (officeIDs, regionIDs) with no descriptions, and the description does not mention them. The names are self-explanatory as filters, but the description adds no meaning about how they are combined, whether they are optional, or their format. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should have compensated but did not.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'service regions', and additionally specifies that it returns matching IDs. It also includes the endpoint mapping, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_regions tool, though 'search' implies a filtered lookup.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for filtering by office IDs or region IDs, nor does it contrast with get_regions or other search tools. The agent is left to infer the use case.

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