get_region_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but does not explicitly state this or any other behaviors such as error conditions, data formats, or permissions. The description adds minimal context beyond what the tool name already conveys.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and key outputs in a compact manner. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It lists 'name, coordinates, bounds' but does not clarify the structure or format of these fields (e.g., coordinate system, bounds shape). For a simple tool with one parameter, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'regionCode', so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter itself; it only lists output fields (name, coordinates, bounds) which are not parameters. As a result, the schema fully handles parameter semantics.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get info about an eBird region — name, coordinates, bounds'. This provides a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('eBird region') along with the key output fields. It is distinct enough from siblings like get_hotspot_info (which is for hotspots) and get_sub_regions (for sub-regions), though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does without any context on prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. There is no mention of when to choose get_region_info over resolve_region_code or get_sub_regions.

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