Cq Zones Valid On

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, yet the description adds the important behavioral fact that CQ publishes no validity window, so the answer is effectively always true for listed zones. That is real context an agent cannot get from the schema, though it omits what happens for an out-of-range code.

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 short sentences with the core answer front-loaded. The second sentence is slightly discursive but earns its place by explaining the no-validity-window rationale.

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 and parameters are fully described, so the description only needs to convey the tool's semantics and the quirk of constant validity, which it does. Little is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (code 1-40, date YYYY-MM-DD) are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates 'zone' and 'date' without adding format or edge-case meaning, so the baseline 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?

States a specific predicate: whether a CQ zone (identified by code) was valid on a given date. It is clearly distinct from lookup/search/codes_for siblings, though it never names them to sharpen 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?

Explains why the tool exists (uniform semantics across owner-list servers) but never says when to call it versus cq_zones_lookup, cq_zones_codes_for, or cq_zones_search. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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