find_top_zones

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool finds 'best performing zones' and hints at a use case for whitelisting, but does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., list of zones with metrics), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any performance characteristics like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 very concise with two short sentences, making it easy to read and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be more structured by explicitly linking parameters to the 'best performing' criteria, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given the complexity of a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of zones with performance metrics), how results are ordered, or any behavioral nuances. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.

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 has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'best performing' is determined from the parameters (e.g., using min_conversions and min_roi). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 states the tool finds 'best performing zones' and mentions 'useful for whitelist candidates,' which gives a general purpose but lacks specificity about what constitutes 'best performing' (e.g., based on conversions, ROI, etc.). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'find_underperforming_zones' but not clearly from others like 'get_zone_performance' or 'find_scaling_opportunities.'

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 provides minimal guidance by noting it's 'useful for whitelist candidates,' implying a context for use, but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_underperforming_zones' or 'get_zone_performance,' nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. No explicit when/when-not instructions are given.

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