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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description provides no explicit behavior—it does not state that the tool returns a list, how results are filtered, or whether there are any side effects. The noun phrase 'Certified Atex zones' hints at the resource but does not describe operational behavior.

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 extremely concise—a single noun phrase plus clarifying examples. It contains no unnecessary words and is immediately clear about the core resource. Despite being brief, it earns its place by giving domain context and examples.

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 the description is too sparse for full completeness. There is no output schema, no annotations, and no explanation of the return format or underlying behavior. The description only identifies the resource and examples, leaving operational details unspecified.

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 coverage is 100%: the input schema already documents 'search' as an optional text filter and 'includeEmpty' as controlling inclusion of empty terms. The description adds no parameter information; therefore, the baseline score 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?

The tool's name getZoneTypes and description 'Certified Atex zones' clearly identify it as a retrieval operation for Atex zone type enumerations. The examples (zone 22, zone 21, ordinary) add specificity and help distinguish it from sibling tools like getApplications or getProductCategories. However, the description lacks an explicit verb and only refers to the resource indirectly.

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 usage: if you need certified Atex zone types, this is the tool. It does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives, but the sibling tools are all for different entities, so the context is fairly clear. No exclusions or exception cases are mentioned.

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