bunny_get_shield_zone

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by listing the returned content categories: WAF settings, rate limit rules, bot detection config, and DDoS protection status, which is useful beyond the annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then provides lookup methods and return scope. No wasted words or redundant repetition of the title.

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 lookup tool with rich annotations and a small, self-explanatory input schema, the description covers the essential information: what it returns and how to identify the resource. It does not explain the exactly-one-ID requirement, but the parameter descriptions already convey the OR constraint.

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?

Both parameters are already documented in the input schema with descriptions clarifying the OR relationship between pull_zone_id and shield_zone_id. The description reinforces that either ID can be used but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('shield zone configuration'), and states the two valid lookup keys (shield zone ID or pull zone ID). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like bunny_list_shield_zones by focusing on a single zone lookup.

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 the correct usage context: call when you need a single shield zone's configuration and have either its shield zone ID or its pull zone ID. It does not explicitly mention using bunny_list_shield_zones when IDs are unknown, but the lookup-by-ID framing gives clear context without needing exclusions.

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