ghl_store_list_shipping_zones

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the auth token scope (sub-account/location), the API version header, and pagination behavior for large result sets.

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 opening line is front-loaded and useful, but the second sentence ('The "List Shipping Zone" API allows to retrieve a list of shipping zone') merely restates the title, and '(source: v3/store-v3.json)' is internal noise an agent cannot act on.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry the load, and it does cover auth scope, endpoint, and paging. What remains missing is any hint of the response shape (zone objects, and that withShippingRate toggles an embedded rates array), which is the one parameter left unexplained.

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 80%, so the schema already documents altId, limit, offset, and withShippingRate. The description reinforces the pagination parameters' purpose but adds nothing about withShippingRate or the altId/altType pairing, so it only marginally exceeds the schema baseline.

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+resource ('retrieve a list of shipping zone') and names the concrete endpoint GET /store/shipping-zone, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like ghl_store_get_shipping_zone or ghl_store_list_shipping_rates, but 'list' versus 'get' is readable from the name.

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?

It states a prerequisite ('Requires a Sub-Account (location) token') and tells the caller to pass limit/offset to page through full result sets, which is real usage guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., use ghl_store_get_shipping_zone for a single zone) or stating when not to use it.

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