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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes beyond that by disclosing that storage passwords are redacted and by naming the underlying endpoint (GET /storagezone). It stops short of describing pagination behavior or what the response envelope looks like, but the redaction note is real added value.

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 enumerating the returned fields, followed by the redaction caveat and endpoint reference. Every clause earns its place with no 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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields and flagging password redaction, and annotations plus schema cover safety and pagination. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether the search term matches zone name only and how deleted zones behave in results.

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 all four parameters (page, search, per_page, include_deleted) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, 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 (list) and resource (edge storage zones on the account) and even enumerates the fields returned: region, replication regions, storage used, file count, tier, connected pull zones. This clearly separates it from the singular bunny_get_storage_zone and from unrelated siblings like bunny_list_regions.

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 'on the account' (list everything, no filtering context stated) but the description never says when to prefer this over bunny_get_storage_zone for a single zone, nor how pagination/search parameters interact with usage. Adequate but leaves the alternative unstated.

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