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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the behavioral load and does it well by disclosing redaction behavior (token-auth key, AWS signing secret, certificate private keys). That is genuine, non-obvious information an agent needs to avoid expecting secrets in the response. It stops short of covering error behavior or missing-ID handling.

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 sentences plus the endpoint reference, front-loaded with the outcome (fetch one pull zone with all settings) before the redaction caveat. Dense but every clause carries information; only the raw endpoint notation is arguably filler.

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 must describe the return surface, and it does so thoroughly by listing the settings groups returned and the redacted secrets. A mutation-free read tool with full schema coverage and clear returns is nearly complete; error cases and rate limits are the only omission.

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%, so both pull_zone_id and include_certificate are already fully documented, establishing the baseline of 3. The description's redaction note overlaps with what the schema already says about private keys being redacted, so it adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 ('Fetch one pull zone') and enumerates exactly what is returned (origin, hostnames, caching, security, edge rules, blocked IPs, limits, usage). The singular 'one pull zone' implicitly separates it from bunny_list_pull_zones, and it even names the downstream sibling that consumes the edge-rule GUIDs.

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 supplies one useful usage cue: the returned edge-rule GUIDs are needed by bunny_set_edge_rule_enabled, which tells the agent why to call this before that tool. However, it never states when to prefer this over bunny_list_pull_zones or bunny_get_statistics, so the core selection decision is left to inference.

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