zbe.listPolygons

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the operation adequately (listing polygons with filters) but does not disclose potential behavioral details like pagination, error handling, or if it is read-only. For a simple list tool, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds value. No extraneous information is present, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It mentions 'geometries' and 'restriction details per city,' which gives some idea, but does not specify the format or structure of the output, leaving some gaps.

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% (all four parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Per the guidelines, when coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not improve it.

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 it lists Low Emission Zone polygons with optional filters, specifying the verb 'list' and the resource 'polygons'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like checkRoute or getBadgeInfo by focusing on browsing available ZBEs and getting geometries.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to browse available ZBEs, get their geometries, and see restriction details per city,' providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, which would strengthen it given the siblings.

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