list_speed_available_regions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state whether results are paginated, how they are sorted, or whether the returned regions are scoped to the provided zone_id. No side effects are mentioned, but the absence of output details leaves an agent under-informed.

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 redundant words. It names the action and the resource immediately and earns its place.

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 one-parameter list operation, the description plus schema is minimally sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool. However, with no output schema, the description does not clarify the shape or semantics of the returned regions (e.g., IDs vs. display names), leaving some ambiguity about how to consume the result.

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 description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, zone_id, is already documented as 'The zone ID.' The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List available regions for speed tests.' It clearly communicates the tool's purpose and is distinguishable from siblings like list_speed_tests, which list tests rather than regions. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly naming the sibling it is not, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: the tool should be used when the caller needs the set of regions that can be targeted by speed tests. There is no direct comparison to list_speed_tests or get_speed_schedule, so an agent must infer when this tool is preferable to those alternatives.

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