Itu Zones Search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the matching semantics (every word must be present, i.e. AND logic), but says nothing about case sensitivity, substring vs prefix matching, result ordering, or why "prefixes" is a searchable field. It also omits any performance/pagination note.

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 compact sentence with the key constraint (all words must match) front-loaded and no filler.

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 no explanation, and the two parameters are fully documented in the schema. Still, a read-only search with five siblings would benefit from routing guidance and matching details, which are absent.

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 the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by naming the four searchable fields (name, prefixes, area wording, attributes), telling the agent what "text" actually matches against. It adds no extra guidance on multi-word splitting or the limit parameter.

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 gives a specific verb ("Find") and resource ("codes") plus the exact fields searched (name, prefixes, area wording, attributes), so an agent knows this is a free-text search over code records rather than a lookup. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like itu_zones_lookup or itu_zones_codes_for, but the operation is clear.

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?

There is no when-to-use framing, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative tools (itu_zones_lookup, itu_zones_codes_for) that would handle exact-key or relationship queries. The agent must infer usage purely from the functional statement.

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