Wordstat regions tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further: no mention of default depth (3), maximum depth (20), behavior when root_region_id is omitted, or the shape of the returned hierarchy.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise. There is room for one more sentence explaining the tree traversal without bloat.

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 described. However, for a two-parameter tree query with zero schema coverage, the description leaves traversal semantics, defaults, and sibling choice entirely unexplained.

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% and the description does not mention either parameter. max_depth and root_region_id are reasonably self-naming, but nothing explains that max_depth caps traversal depth or that omitting root_region_id starts from the top of the tree.

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 ('hierarchy of regions') but supplies no verb and no scope beyond that. It hints at a tree structure that distinguishes it from the flat sibling wordstat_regions, yet never explicitly contrasts with wordstat_regions or wordstat_find_regions.

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 guidance on when to call this instead of wordstat_regions or wordstat_find_regions, and no mention of prerequisites or defaults. The agent must infer from the name alone that this returns a nested tree rather than a flat list.

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