get_zone_hold

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get zone hold status,' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose response behavior, possible status values, authorization needs, or any side effects. This is minimal coverage at best.

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 one short sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. There is no redundant wording or filler, so every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter getter, so the description is minimally sufficient to identify the call. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what 'status' will look like or what values may be returned, leaving an important gap for an agent consuming the result.

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 parameter zone_id is already described as 'The zone ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it gets the zone hold status for a zone. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explain what 'zone hold' means or explicitly differentiate it from sibling getters like get_zone or get_zone_settings. The target resource is still unambiguous enough for an agent to select it.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no explicit exclusions, and no context about prerequisites. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'Get' and the resource name, so the description provides no real direction.

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