DescribeZones

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool queries information, implying it's a read-only operation, but doesn't confirm this or describe other traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or pagination. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this minimal description leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose and key parameters. It's front-loaded with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks information on the return format (e.g., what fields are included in the list), error handling, or typical use cases. For a query tool with multiple parameters and no structured output documentation, users need more context to use it effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, examples, and defaults. The description adds minimal value by listing '地域ID、计费方式等参数' (region ID, billing method, and other parameters), which loosely maps to RegionId and InstanceChargeType, but doesn't provide additional context or meaning beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: '查询可用区信息列表' (query availability zone information list) with filtering by '地域ID、计费方式等参数' (region ID, billing method, and other parameters). It specifies both the action (query/list) and resource (availability zones), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like DescribeRegions or DescribeAvailableResource, which appear related.

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 versus alternatives. The description mentions parameters but doesn't explain the context or prerequisites for use, such as whether it's for resource provisioning or general information lookup. With many sibling tools in the server (e.g., DescribeRegions, DescribeAvailableResource), the lack of comparative guidance is a significant gap.

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