Wordstat regions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the 30-day window, which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or the size of the region dataset despite limit/offset params.

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?

It is a single tight sentence with no waste, and the time scope is front-loaded. But the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency; the sentence could have spent a few more words on the parameters that are otherwise undocumented.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Against six parameters with zero schema descriptions and four sibling tools with overlapping semantics, however, the description is too thin to let an agent call it confidently or choose 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across six parameters, so the schema supplies only names, types, and defaults. The description does not mention phrase, limit, offset, devices, region_type, or resolve_names, leaving the agent to guess what 'resolve_names' does and whether devices accepts multiple values. Only the regional nature of the query is hinted at.

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 names the resource (Wordstat demand distribution by region) and a time scope (last 30 days), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it gives no verb and no distinguishing detail versus siblings such as wordstat_regions_tree or wordstat_find_regions, which all involve regions. An agent cannot tell why it would pick this one over the tree variant.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus wordstat_regions_tree, wordstat_find_regions, or wordstat_dynamics. The only usable signal is the implicit 'flat list of regions' framing, which the agent must infer from the name. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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