opensolr_vector_regions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'List' communicates a read-side effect, and 'currently available' plus the Solr/vector criteria specifies what conditions determine the result. It does not fully describe response shape, but the presence of an output schema reduces that need.

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 entire description is one focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds only the essential clarifying condition. No wasted words or redundant restatements exist.

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, no-side-effect lising tool with an output schema available, this description fully covers what the tool does and how it filters. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 accepts zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add. The schema already reflects this with an empty properties object, making further description unnecessary and the baseline 4 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('vector-enabled Opensolr environments') and a concrete eligibility filter ('Solr 9.x with dense vectors and the hybrid query parser'). It separates this from general index-listing siblings like opensolr_list_indexes by emphasizing vector-enabled.

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 its use case: if you need vector-capable Solr environments, call this tool. However, it never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives, such as opensolr_list_indexes, or states when not to use it.

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