cdn_get_cdn_available_regions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is to 'Get list', which implies a read-only action, and mentions 'with details' for the return. However, it doesn't explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no permissions, or that it's non-destructive. For a zero-parameter getter, the transparency is adequate but minimal.

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 very concise, with only two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose; the second sentence about returns is redundant given the output schema exists but is harmless. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no waste.

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?

Given the simplistic nature (no parameters, no annotations, output schema present), the description is functional but lacks guidance on when to use it relative to sibling tools like cdn_list_cdn_zones or region_list. It doesn't mention any limitations or special cases, which could be needed for full completeness, though the operation itself is straightforward.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details since there are none, and the input schema confirms this. No additional semantics needed.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('list of available CDN regions'), which is specific and distinguishes it from CDN zone tools like cdn_list_cdn_zones. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from broader region tools like region_list, which could cause ambiguity. It's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as region_list or cdn_list_cdn_zones. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The description is purely declarative without contextual usage advice.

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