Cq Zones Search

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the searchable fields and implies AND-matching across 'every word', which is useful behavioral context, but omits ordering/pagination behavior, result format, and whether matching is case-insensitive or prefix-based beyond the field list.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the verb and the search scope. No filler words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and annotations are absent. The description covers the core matching behavior but doesn't say how this search differs from lookup-oriented siblings or when an agent should prefer it, leaving a routing gap.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema (text examples, limit range). The description adds the 'every word' containment semantics for text, but this is the baseline schema-documented case.

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 (Find) and resource (codes, implicitly CQ zones codes), with detail on which fields are searched (name, prefixes, area wording, attributes). This distinguishes it from lookup-oriented siblings like cq_zones_lookup and cq_zones_valid_on, though the sibling differentiation is implicit rather than named.

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?

No guidance on when to use this search versus siblings such as cq_zones_lookup or cq_zones_codes_for. The 'every word' matching semantics is implied but not stated, and no conditions for choosing this tool are given.

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