Cq Zones Valid On

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses a genuinely non-obvious trait: CQ's list has no validity window, so every listed zone is valid. That tells the agent the expected answer before it calls. It stops short of describing unknown/out-of-range code handling or confirming read-only semantics.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation before the rationale. The second sentence is somewhat meta but earns its place by explaining the always-valid semantics. No wasted text.

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 unnecessary, and the description supplies the key semantic quirk an agent needs. For a simple two-required-param boolean query, it is nearly complete, only missing error/edge-case behavior.

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%: code is documented as 1-40 and on_date as YYYY-MM-DD. The description adds no format or range detail beyond that, so the baseline 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 operation on a specific resource: whether a CQ zone was valid on a given date. It is clear and self-contained, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like cq_zones_lookup or cq_zones_search, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

The rationale 'so every owner-list server answers the same questions' implies the tool is the canonical validity check, but it never states when to prefer this over cq_zones_lookup or cq_zones_search. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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