get_zone_setting

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only conveys that this is a read operation ('Get') and gives example inputs; it does not describe what happens for an unknown or invalid setting_name, authorization requirements, error behavior, or the result shape. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a thin disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler words: the verb, resource, and scoping qualifier ('by name') all appear up front. It is efficiently sized, though it earns the score for brevity rather than content density, since the same sentence could have carried sibling-routing or behavioral context.

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 2-parameter GET with 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally viable: an agent knows what to call and what arguments to pass. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves gaps around error behavior, return shape, and — given the large sibling list containing get_zone_settings — how this tool relates to the plural variant. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 — both zone_id and setting_name are already documented in the schema, including example values. The description's examples (ssl, min_tls_version, security_level) are actually a subset of the schema's own example list, so it adds no new parametric meaning beyond restating the existing examples.

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 a specific resource ('a specific zone setting by name'), with concrete examples (ssl, min_tls_version, security_level) that anchor what the tool operates on. The word 'specific' and the singular form implicitly differentiate it from the sibling get_zone_settings (plural), though it does not explicitly name that sibling. Clear, but stops short of explicit sibling contrast.

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 phrase 'by name' implies the usage case — you call this tool when you already know which setting you want — but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives like get_zone_settings (list all) or get_ssl_settings (aggregate). Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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