ztna_dns_group

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a non-mutating operation, so the description's main added value is disclosing the return subject matter: health and failover status rather than configuration or membership. It says nothing about permissions, error behavior when the group is unknown, or how stale the health data may be, which is where a 4 or 5 would come from.

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?

One short sentence with the operation type front-loaded in brackets and no filler; every word contributes. It is arguably too terse rather than too verbose, but there is no wasted phrasing to trim.

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 one-parameter read operation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. However, the origin and format of the only required argument is undocumented, and the shape of the returned 'health and failover status' is left entirely unspecified, which leaves real gaps for an agent calling this cold.

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 0%, so group_id is completely undocumented in the structured data, and the description does not compensate at all — it never says whether group_id is a name, UUID, or index, nor where to obtain a valid value. With one required parameter and zero coverage, the description should have carried this burden and does not.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Read') with a specific resource ('DNS group') and names what aspect is returned ('health and failover status'), so the agent knows exactly what data this yields. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the plural sibling ztna_dns_groups, leaving the singular/plural distinction to the tool name alone.

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: the singular name plus the required group_id parameter suggests fetching one specific group, while ztna_dns_groups presumably lists them. There is no explicit 'use this when... / use ztna_dns_groups instead when...' statement, so the routing to alternatives must be inferred.

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