get_zone_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; 'Get' implies a safe read, and the exclusivity rule is useful behavioral context. It says nothing about permissions, error behavior when neither/both args are supplied, or rate limits, but the read nature is unambiguous.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the key constraint, then compact Args entries — nothing padded. The 'Returns: Zone details' line is largely redundant given an output schema exists, but the overall size is well matched to a simple two-parameter lookup.

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 read-only lookup with an output schema, an agent has enough: which identifier to pass, that only one may be passed, and the accepted formats. Sibling routing and failure-mode behavior are the only real omissions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it states that zone_id is a 32-character hex string and zone_name is a domain like example.com, plus the either/or rule. Only the nullability/defaults remain undocumented, which is minor.

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 ('Get Cloudflare zone details') plus the two lookup keys, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like list_zones_tool or get_zone_analytics_tool.

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 mutual-exclusion rule ('Provide either zone_id or zone_name, not both') is a real usage constraint that prevents a bad call. But there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over list_zones_tool (enumeration) or get_zone_analytics_tool (metrics), leaving sibling selection to inference.

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