combell_mail_zones_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value beyond these by detailing what the response contains and noting that the account_id is needed to create mailboxes, which is useful operational context. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence beginning with the core action ('Get the mail zone of a domain') followed by an efficient list of response components. It is dense but every clause earns its place; it could be split into two sentences but is not bloated.

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 simple read tool with one well-documented parameter, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is retrieved and enumerates the response elements an agent needs. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit sibling routing, which is a usage concern rather than completeness.

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 domain_name parameter is already documented in the schema with a format example ('example.be'). The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the full semantic load.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('mail zone of a domain') and enumerates the response contents — mail enabled status, mail accounts with account_id, aliases, anti-spam level, catch-all, and SMTP domains. This content list differentiates it from siblings like combell_mailboxes_get (which focuses on mailboxes) and the various mail_zones mutation tools, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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 — a GET tool for a broad domain mail overview. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over combell_mailboxes_get or combell_domains_get, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions. The purpose is clear enough to infer typical use, but explicit routing guidance is absent.

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