rank_zones

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

Annotations already cover the key safety profile: readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that results are ranked and include a main driver, but does not expand much beyond that, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage and output schema.

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 compact sentence with the purpose and output summary front-loaded. Every element earns its place with no filler.

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?

The output schema exists, annotations cover read-only and closed-world behavior, and the description explains that results are ranked with a main driver. It is complete enough for invocation, though the ranking methodology could be clearer.

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% and top_n is already documented as how many zones to return. The description echoes 'top N' but adds no extra semantics such as ranking criteria or tie-breaking.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: rank zones and return the top N for drilling, including each score's main driver. It is distinguishable from list_zones and get_zone by the ranking/prioritization purpose, though it does not explicitly name siblings.

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?

Implies the tool is for prioritizing which zones to drill first, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives such as list_zones or get_zone. The usage context is inferable rather than stated.

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