Get Zone

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: YAML-defined zones only appear with the custom component, and results are marked editable=false/source='yaml' vs 'storage'. That is genuinely useful disclosure, though it doesn't cover pagination or return shape.

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 the core behavior and example calls before the more niche YAML/storage caveat. The component paragraph is long but earns its place by preventing silent empty results; overall well-structured with minor verbosity.

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 single-optional-param read tool with an output schema covering return values, the description is complete: both invocation modes, examples, and the environment-dependent caveat on which zones are returned are all present.

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 coverage is 100% and the zone_id description already says it comes from the list call. The description reinforces the two-mode semantics of zone_id but adds little syntax or format detail the schema lacks, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 zone information') and immediately distinguishes the two modes: list-all vs. detail-for-one. An agent can tell this apart from sibling mutations like ha_set_zone and ha_remove_zone without opening the 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?

Explicitly describes the condition that selects each mode, with concrete examples for both calls. It does not name the sibling alternatives (ha_set_zone/ha_remove_zone) for when a write is actually intended, so it stops short of the top score.

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