bunny_list_pull_zones

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 that results are CDN endpoints with origins, but reveals no additional behavioral nuances such as default pagination behavior, response shape, or side effects of include_certificate. That is acceptable but not exceptional given 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The action and scope are front-loaded, and the explanatory second sentence adds useful domain context without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple list endpoint.

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 low-complexity read-only listing tool, the description plus fully documented schema and safety annotations provide enough information for an agent to call it correctly. The minor gap is lack of explicit feedback about response shape, but no output schema exists and such details are not strictly required.

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?

All four parameters already have descriptive text in the schema, yielding 100% coverage. The description only rephrases that search and pagination are available without adding new meaning beyond the schema. 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?

The description clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('all CDN pull zones in the account'), and the scope. It adds a clarifying definition of a pull zone, which helps an agent understand the returned entities. This distinguishes it from get_pull_zone, create_pull_zone, and other pull-zone mutation tools visible in the sibling list.

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 makes it clear that this is the tool for retrieving multiple pull zones, with optional search and pagination. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or alternatives like bunny_get_pull_zone for single-zone lookups, but the context is unambiguous enough for a list op.

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