list_zone_partner_shadow_hosts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read, but it discloses nothing about pagination, result limits, required permissions for partner data, or what a 'shadow host' actually represents. That is a notable gap for a partner-integration data tool.

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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no wasted words. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 two-parameter read tool this is minimally adequate: the schema covers inputs, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should say something about what is returned or how results are bounded. It leaves the agent unable to anticipate the response shape.

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 both zone_id and partner are already documented in the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate. The description echoes that both a zone and a partner identifier are required but adds no format, syntax, or behavioral nuance beyond the schema.

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 pairs a specific verb (List) with a specific resource (partner-discovered shadow hosts) and scopes it to 'a Cloudflare zone and partner'. This implicitly distinguishes it from the account-level list_partner_shadow_zone_hosts sibling, though it never names that alternative to make the distinction explicit.

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 through the 'for a Cloudflare zone and partner' scoping. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative, even though list_partner_shadow_zone_hosts, list_partner_shadow_zones, and list_scanned_dns_records are close siblings an agent could easily confuse this with.

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