Itu Zones Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the matching semantics: conjunction across multiple fields, not a single-field exact match. It omits case sensitivity and result ordering, which are minor given the annotations.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and the fields searched. It is efficient rather than padded, though extremely terse for a tool with several near-name siblings.

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 and rich annotations carry most of the load, and the parameter schema is fully described, so little is strictly required of the description. Still, for a search tool it leaves unclear whether matching is case-insensitive or substring-based, which affects how an agent phrases the query.

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%, so both parameters are already documented with examples and a limit range, establishing the baseline of 3. The description's 'every word of text' adds a conjunctive-matching nuance beyond the schema example, but nothing about how words are tokenized.

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 verb 'Find' plus the resource 'codes' is specific, and the description goes further by naming the searchable fields (name, prefixes, area wording, attributes). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the close siblings itu_zones_lookup or itu_zones_codes_for, so an agent must infer that this is the free-text search variant.

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 matching rule ('contain every word of text') implies the tool is for multi-word/fuzzy discovery rather than exact lookup, which implicitly routes it against itu_zones_lookup. However, no when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement is given, and no alternative is named.

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