free_zone_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description's only added behavioral signal is "full curated record," implying a complete rather than summarized payload; there is no mention of error behavior for an unknown id or rate limits.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word (single, full, curated, by id) carries information about scope and payload depth.

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 one-parameter read-only getter with a fully documented schema, an output schema already covering return values, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. The only meaningful omission is the upstream relationship to list_free_zones for obtaining a valid id.

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 the single free_zone_id property already documents the slug format with twelve concrete examples. The description adds nothing beyond restating that the lookup is keyed by id, so the 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?

"Get the full curated record for a single free zone by id" names a specific verb (get), resource (free zone), and scope (single, by id), which implicitly distinguishes it from a list operation. It does not, however, name or contrast with its obvious siblings list_free_zones or compare_free_zones, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The phrase "by id" faintly implies an id must first come from list_free_zones, but the agent is left to infer that workflow entirely on its own.

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