Itu Zones Codes For

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that split entities return each zone with the IARU's boundary wording, which goes beyond the annotations and helps an agent understand the shape of the result.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and uses the second sentence to clarify a meaningful edge case. Every sentence earns its place without repetition.

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?

With complete schema coverage, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies enough context for an agent to call the tool correctly. It could be slightly more complete by routing the agent away from sibling tools, but that omission is minor for this simple lookup.

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 structurally. The description reinforces that the input is an ADIF DXCC entity or one of its subdivisions but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, making the baseline score 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?

The description clearly states that the tool returns ITU zones covering an ADIF DXCC entity or one of its subdivisions. It is specific about the resource and input scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as itu_zones_lookup or itu_zones_search.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'Which ITU zones cover an ADIF DXCC entity, or one of its subdivisions,' but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool rather than its siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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