List residential geo targets

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

Annotations cover readOnly/openWorld, but the description adds real behavioral value beyond them: the backend silently ignores unknown codes and keeps the previous location, and returned entries may carry title_ru that is absent for small towns. These are non-obvious data-shape and failure traits not present in the annotations or schema.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the purpose and integration constraint lead, with cascade and data-quirk notes following. Every sentence carries information, though the paragraph is on the longer side.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing returned fields (`code`, title_ru) and their caveats, plus the cascade constraints for correct invocation. It covers what an agent needs to call and interpret results, with only minor gaps around pagination or full result shape.

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 already 100%, so the schema documents the parameters. The description nonetheless adds ordering/dependency semantics and the rationale (cities need a region because large countries have thousands) that go beyond the raw field descriptions, though it stops short of enriching every field.

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?

States a specific verb (lists) and resource (geo targets for residential proxies), enumerating the four target kinds (countries, regions, cities, ASNs). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_geo_list, find_available_geo, and set_residential_geo, which it explicitly references.

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?

Explicitly ties itself to set_residential_geo (only `code` values returned here are accepted) and warns that unknown codes are ignored. It also spells out the cascade required for calls (countries → regions+country → cities+country+region), leaving nothing to inference.

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