get_email_zone

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Get details' implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is read-only, what data is returned, how errors are handled (e.g., non-existent ID), or any permission requirements. This leaves the agent without essential expectations.

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, focused sentence with no redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to the core message, making it highly efficient.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the absence of an output schema and annotations means the description should clarify what 'details' entails and any constraints (e.g., active vs. archived zones). It fails to do so, leaving the agent with an incomplete understanding of the tool's behavior and scope.

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 fully documents the only parameter ('id' as 'Email zone ID'), achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific email zone'), making the core purpose apparent. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_archived_email_zone', which also gets details of an email zone by ID, likely for a different (archived) scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as 'list_email_zones' for enumerating zones or 'get_archived_email_zone' for archived zones. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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