cc_locales

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether the crawl parameter affects execution, or any limitations, rate limits, or side effects. Only the grouping behavior is disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, and the concrete examples make it easy to parse.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the input side is incomplete: the `crawl` parameter is undefined, there are no usage guidelines, and there is no behavioral/safety disclosure. The description clearly communicates the core purpose but is not sufficient for reliable tool invocation in all cases.

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 phrase 'домена' gives some meaning to the `domain` parameter, but the optional `crawl` parameter is entirely unexplained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 produces a breakdown of a domain's pages by path language prefix (/ru, /en, /uz), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like cc_zone_suffixes or cc_sections. However, it uses the noun 'разбивка' rather than an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'lists', so it stops just short of a full 5.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not compare cc_locales with sibling tools, mention prerequisites, or state when it should be preferred over alternatives like cc_presence or cc_urls.

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