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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the exact fields returned and, notably, that storage passwords are redacted. It does not cover pagination behavior, so it is helpful but not fully transparent.

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 compact sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the action and scope before the return-field detail and endpoint. Every clause carries information.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the response fields and notes password redaction, while the schema fully covers the four parameters. Pagination/ordering semantics are the only mild gap.

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 page, search, per_page and include_deleted are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions none of them, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured fields; baseline 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 and resource ('List the edge storage zones on the account') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_storage_zone, but the plural/list framing makes the contrast inferable.

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 only implied: list all storage zones on the account. There is no explicit when-to-use vs bunny_get_storage_zone, no note about when pagination or filtering is needed, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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