get_archived_email_zone

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only implies read-only behavior via 'Get details'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that the zone must be archived), error behavior, auth requirements, or what the returned 'details' actually include.

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 a single efficient sentence of eight words, front-loaded with the action verb and zero redundant or filler content. Every word earns its place.

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 an extremely simple one-parameter getter, the description is minimally viable: purpose is stated and the schema handles the only input. However, with no output schema, it omits what 'details' of the archived email zone look like, and it fails to disambiguate from similarly named siblings in a very large tool list.

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%—the single required 'id' parameter is documented as 'Archived email zone ID'. Since the schema fully covers the parameter, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description adds no additional parameter context, which is acceptable but earns no credit.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get details of') and clearly names the resource ('a specific archived email zone'), making the action and object unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_email_zone or get_archived_zone, relying on the tool name to carry the distinction.

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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many near-identical siblings such as get_archived_zone, get_email_zone, or list_archived_email_zones. There are no when-to-use statements, exclusions, or alternative tool references, so the agent must infer context purely from naming conventions.

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