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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds one useful piece of context the annotations do not carry: the boundary field is returned as a GeoJSON Polygon. It says nothing about behavior on a nonexistent ID or the rest of the response payload.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded ahead of the secondary return-format 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 output schema, the description usefully discloses the shape of the boundary return value (GeoJSON Polygon), which is the one non-obvious payload detail. For a simple single-resource getter this is nearly complete, though error/not-found behavior is left unstated.

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 100% and there is only one parameter, whose uuid format and pattern are fully documented in the schema. The description's 'by ID' adds no syntax or meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Get'), resource ('infrastructure zone'), and retrieval scope ('single ... by ID'), which cleanly separates it from list_infrastructure_zones. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternative, 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?

Usage is implied by 'by ID' — an agent infers it needs a known zone identifier rather than listing. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer list_infrastructure_zones, and no prerequisites (e.g., permissions) given.

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