Itu Zones Lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a significant behavioral trait: coverage gaps (zones 76-77 and 79-89 return no entry), which is important for an agent to know. However, it doesn't state whether a missing zone returns an empty result or an error, nor does it cover rate limits or auth. Partial credit for the coverage disclosure.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by the coverage caveat. No wasted words; each clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a simple single-parameter lookup, the description covers purpose and coverage gaps adequately, but it omits error behavior (what happens for zones 76-77/79-89) and any routing to sibling tools, leaving a gap in an otherwise complete definition.

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 the single 'code' parameter is documented as 'An ITU zone number, 1 to 90.' The description adds the important cross-reference that certain codes have no entry, but this is schema-adjacent rather than adding syntax or format beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('One ITU zone') and enumerates exactly what is retrieved: prefixes, subdivisions, boundaries, ADIF codes, and citation. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like itu_zones_search or itu_zones_codes_for.

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 description implies usage (retrieve full details for a single zone), and the coverage caveat (zones 76-77, 79-89 have no entry) is useful, but it doesn't explicitly say when to use this versus itu_zones_search or itu_zones_codes_for. No explicit alternatives named.

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