yandex_wordstat_regions

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true). The description adds two useful traits not in the annotations: a fixed 30-day window and consumption of a server-side budget, which implies cost/rate-limit behavior. However, it never explains what happens when the budget is exhausted or how the gate is triggered, so the disclosure is suggestive rather than actionable.

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 front-loaded sentence with no padding or repetition. The 'server budget gate' clause is somewhat cryptic but is at least placed where it will be read.

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 needn't be described. Still, for a tool with 0% parameter documentation the description leaves the region and devices inputs unexplained and gives no guidance on the budget gate's failure mode, which an agent needs in order to call it safely.

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 three parameters exist, so the description must compensate. It only hints that results can be segmented 'by region' and says nothing about the 'devices' array, valid region identifiers, or the REGION_ALL default.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get Wordstat demand by region') plus a fixed scope ('last 30 days'), which is enough to separate it from yandex_wordstat_get_top and yandex_wordstat_dynamics. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings or clarify its relationship to yandex_wordstat_regions_tree, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer this over the other Wordstat siblings (get_top, dynamics, regions_tree). The only contextual hint is the unexplained 'server budget gate' phrase.

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