bunny_get_pull_zone

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with these by saying 'Retrieve.' The description adds value by specifying what kind of data will be returned (origin URL, hostnames, caching settings, security options, edge rules, optimizer config), which goes beyond the annotations alone.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource before listing the configuration categories. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler wording.

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 simple read-only getter, the description plus annotations are largely sufficient: the safety profile is covered by annotations, the parameter is fully documented, and the description enumerates the major returned sections. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention not-found behavior or how to obtain the ID, leaving minor gaps.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the only parameter, 'id', including its type, description, and constraint. The description simply refers to 'by ID' without adding additional semantic meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies given 100% schema description coverage.

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 description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('full configuration of a CDN pull zone by ID'), and enumerates the kinds of configuration included. This clearly distinguishes it from list, create, update, and delete operations among the sibling tools.

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 context is only implied: the tool is for retrieving a single pull zone's configuration by ID, while list_pull_zones would be for enumerating zones. There is no explicit statement about when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it, but the verb and 'by ID' scope provide reasonable implicit guidance.

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