get_zone

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for going beyond them by disclosing the payload contents (status, authoritative nameservers, delegation status, record count), which tells the agent this is zone metadata rather than record data. It omits anything about failure modes when the zone does not exist or does not exist in this account.

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?

One tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the returned fields grouped in a parenthetical — no filler. The phrasing 'nameservers it is authoritative on' is slightly awkward but costs nothing in meaning.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so at a useful level of detail for a single-fetch tool. The only real gap is the absence of any note on what happens for an unknown zone, which is minor for a read operation.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'zone' parameter is already documented in-schema as 'Zone ID or name, e.g. example.com'. The description adds no syntax, format, or resolution nuance beyond that, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a DNS zone') and enumerates the returned facets (status, nameservers, delegation status, record count), which lets an agent separate it from record-level siblings like get_rrset. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative, so it is clear rather than fully differentiated.

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: the one-required-parameter shape and read-only nature suggest 'fetch one existing zone by ID or name'. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion against the mutate siblings (update_zone, change_zone_ttl), and no prerequisite statement.

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