List reference zones (shared)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description reinforces 'Read-only' and 'never writes'. It adds valuable context: data is shared, same for every key, no tenant filter, and each row exposes sedisId, name, and sourceName. No contradiction with 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?

The description is well-structured with a leading 'Read-only', a clear scope statement, field list, usage context, and example. It is slightly redundant by repeating 'read-only' at the end, but overall it is efficient and 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?

Given the output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, shared scope, fields, and a usage example. It is complete for a list tool with rich structured metadata, though it could have explicitly listed sibling alternatives but that is not essential.

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 mentions nameContains with an example, but the schema already provides the same example ('Stockholm'), so it adds little beyond what the schema already documents.

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 the tool lists 'SHARED Sedis-owned reference zones' with a specific verb (List) and resource, and distinguishes them from private data. It also notes the fields exposed and the use case, making it unambiguous and different from sibling list tools.

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 provides a clear use case ('Use a reference zone as a market benchmark to compare against your own comparison zones and property units') and gives an example with nameContains. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but it distinguishes shared reference data from private data, giving contextual guidance.

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