adm_domain_zones

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation and the description states what is returned (domain zones and prices). It does not disclose details like pricing currency, ordering, pagination, or authentication requirements, but for a zero-parameter list tool this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word adds meaning: it names the action, the resource, and the relevant output detail.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is largely complete: it tells the agent what the tool lists and what data is included. It could mention return format or the meaning of 'available', but the absence is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds value by clarifying that the output includes prices.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available domain zones') plus the scope of returned data ('with prices'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like adm_domains or adm_domain_check, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening any schema.

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 implies the use case: call this when you need available domain zones and their prices. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools such as adm_domains or adm_domain_check.

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