plan_get_plans_by_region_availability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it returns plans available in the region, which covers the core behavior, but it does not describe the exact structure of the response, whether it includes plan details or just identifiers, or any error conditions. For a read-only operation this 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 concise and well-structured, with the purpose stated upfront, followed by parameter explanations and a returns note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no nested objects, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, parameters, and returns. Combined with the presence of an output schema, it is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly. It lacks details on edge cases or relationships to other tools, but these are not critical for a straightforward read operation.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters, and it does: region is described with example codes, and format is described with default value and allowed options. It adds value beyond the raw schema, though it could further elaborate on the difference between 'compact' and 'json' formats.

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 action ('Get plans available in a specific region') with a specific resource ('plans') and a filter ('by region'). It distinguishes itself from sibling plan tools like plan_list_plans (all plans) and plan_search_plans_by_specs (by specs) through its focus on region availability, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 when to use this tool—when you need plans available in a specific region—but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or compare it to alternatives such as plan_list_plans or region_find_regions_with_plan. The context is clear but exclusionary criteria are absent.

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