List Zones

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so 'Read operation.' adds nothing. The genuinely additive content is the 500-account cap, which is a real operational constraint an agent cannot derive from annotations or schema. Return shape and pagination behavior are not disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, with the constraint stated early. The sentence 'Read operation.' is redundant with readOnlyHint and slightly dilutes an otherwise tight description.

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?

Wait—reassess: with 11 optional parameters fully documented in the schema and rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, the only real gaps are output shape and pagination semantics, and no output schema exists to cover them. For a paginated list tool this leaves a moderate rather than severe 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including filter-operator syntax, enum values, defaults, and the note that internal zones are excluded when type is omitted, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes nothing beyond the schema (e.g., it never mentions that filters exist or that results paginate).

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 opens with a specific compound verb set (lists, searches, sorts, filters) on a named resource (zones), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from get_zone or list_provider_accounts, so the agent must infer that 'list' means collection retrieval versus single-zone lookup.

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?

Usage is only implied: a read listing tool for zones, plus a hard constraint that listing across more than 500 accounts is currently not allowed. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_zone or the account-listing siblings, so the guidance is partial rather than directive.

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