bni_list_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. The verb 'Lists' signals a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose response format, whether region identifiers are returned, or any other behavior the agent should expect. It is adequate for a simple list tool but not richly transparent.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, resource, and scope immediately, making it easy to scan and process.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient. However, it does not clarify what a 'region' looks like in the response or how the output can be used with other tools, leaving a notable gap for an agent that must chain calls.

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%, so the country parameter is already fully documented, including examples and a pointer to bni_list_countries. The tool description adds only the phrase 'for a country,' which reinforces the parameter but does not add meaning beyond the structured schema.

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 ('Lists') with a clear resource ('official BNI regions') and a scope ('for a country'). It is easy to distinguish from siblings like bni_list_countries and bni_list_chapters because the resource type is explicit.

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 the tool: when you need BNI regions for a country. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or how this tool fits into the broader country/region/chapter hierarchy, leaving some usage context to inference.

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