Дерево регионов Wordstat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the main behavior ('Возвращает ID и названия регионов') and implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention the tree structure or any side-effect/auth considerations. Basic but not rich.

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 sentence with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.

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?

The tool is simple, but without an output schema or annotations the description should clarify that the result is a hierarchical tree and how 'depth' affects it. It states the return kind and purpose, yet leaves ambiguity versus the sibling 'wordstat_get_regions'.

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%: the description never mentions the 'depth' parameter. The schema itself documents type, default, min, and max, but the description does not explain what depth controls (e.g., nesting level of the tree), so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 ('Возвращает') and names the resource ('ID и названия регионов'), plus the intended use ('для фильтров остальных инструментов'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tree variant from the sibling tool wordstat_get_regions, so it misses the top score.

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 the use case: retrieve region IDs to filter other tools. It gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, leaving sibling differentiation to inference.

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