List Regions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the "available capacity" hint, and does not clarify whether regions without capacity are filtered out or merely annotated — a behaviorally meaningful distinction left ambiguous.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is arguably too terse for the ambiguity it leaves, but nothing in it is wasted or buried.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with annotations present, this is close to sufficient. What is missing is a clearer statement of the return shape (region identifiers and capacity) and whether the result set is filtered, which matters because no output schema exists to answer those questions.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is also 100%.

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?

"List Krova Cloud regions" is a specific verb plus resource, and it names the provider domain the regions belong to. No sibling tool covers regions, so sibling differentiation is not needed here; the purpose is immediately legible.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor a pointer to the create_cube step that presumably consumes region IDs. The usage is only implied by the tool's name and the phrase "available capacity".

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