GetZoneBoundaries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the cost model of the boundary recalculation and the batching benefit, which is exactly the kind of information annotations cannot express.

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?

Three sentences, zero padding, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the performance advice. The trailing '(Tapir, Element Commands)' tag is the only non-earning text and is trivial.

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 2-param read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies everything needed to select and invoke it correctly. It does not hint at the shape of the returned boundary data, which is the only remaining gap given there is no output schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the mutual-exclusivity constraint and, more importantly, the performance rationale for choosing the list form, which tells an agent how to pick between the two parameters rather than just what they are.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Gets the boundaries of the given Zones') and it even disambiguates what 'boundaries' means (connected elements, neighbour zones). It contrasts with the sibling CreateZones implicitly, though it never names a competing read tool such as GetAllElements or Get3DBoundingBoxes.

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?

Gives clear operational guidance: prefer the zones list because the expensive recalculation runs once per call, and notes only one of zoneElementId/zones may be supplied. It stops short of stating when this tool is the wrong choice versus a sibling.

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