Распределение спроса по регионам

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what data is produced (frequency, share, affinity index) but says nothing about how the data is aggregated, what a response looks like, whether the query is read-only, or how device/region filters affect results. The description is too thin to make agent behavior predictable.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the key metric outputs are front-loaded. It earns a high score for brevity, though it sacrifices useful detail.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the tool is under-specified for an agent to invoke confidently. The description does not explain the region enum values, the devices array behavior, response structure, or how this relates to sibling wordstat tools. A complete definition would need at least one more sentence of usage and output context.

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 compensate, but it only vaguely references the phrase ('фразы') and the region dimension ('по городам или регионам'). It adds no meaning for the 'devices' parameter, and none of the enum values are explained. This leaves two of three parameters underspecified.

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 ('regions/cities') and the specific metrics returned ('frequency, share, affinity index'), so an agent can understand the tool's purpose. It does not use an explicit verb like 'get' or 'return', but the title 'Распределение спроса по регионам' reinforces the function. It is distinguishable from siblings by the metric focus, though it does not explicitly contrast with wordstat_get_regions_tree.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus any sibling, such as wordstat_get_dynamics or wordstat_get_regions_tree. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases. The context is only implied by the metrics it returns.

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