cdn_get_cdn_zone_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal that the tool accepts three identifier formats and returns a summary of configuration, stats, and SSL info. However, it does not explicitly state that this is read-only, what happens on invalid identifiers, or whether any side effects occur. For a getter, the read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 compact and well-structured with a one-line summary, a usage note, and clear Args/Returns sections. Each part adds useful information; the only minor issue is slight redundancy between 'Get a comprehensive summary' and the Returns clause, but it does not hurt clarity.

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?

For a simple one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the identifier formats and the general contents of the response. It is incomplete only in not distinguishing this from closely related CDN summary/stats tools, and in not mentioning error behavior. Given the low complexity, this is a minor gap.

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?

The schema only provides a generic string type with 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by specifying that zone_identifier accepts an origin domain, CDN domain, or ID. This tells an agent exactly what values are valid, which is high-value semantic information.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('CDN zone'), and further clarifies the scope with 'comprehensive summary... including configuration, stats, and SSL info'. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like cdn_get_cdn_zone or cdn_get_cdn_zone_stats, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 statement about when to prefer this tool over cdn_get_cdn_zone or cdn_get_cdn_zone_stats. The only usage note, 'Smart identifier resolution: use origin domain, CDN domain, or UUID', addresses parameter flexibility, not selection among alternatives. This provides no guidance for choosing the right sibling.

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