list_zerotrust_subnets

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List,' implying a read-only operation, but does not state whether results are paginated, scoped to the account, filterable, or what the response contains.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately short for a simple list action, though it skips the behavioral and usage details that would make it more useful.

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 one simple required parameter and no output schema, the tool is low-complexity and the schema covers the parameter. However, the description lacks any account-scope, pagination, or selection context, so it is only minimally complete.

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 100%: account_id is the only parameter and is documented as 'The account ID.' The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specifies the exact operation ('List') and resource ('Zero Trust subnets'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It is distinguishable from sibling list tools because no other sibling targets Zero Trust subnets, though it does not add qualifiers or explicit 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 description gives no guidance about when to use this tool rather than related list tools such as list_zerotrust_hostname_routes, list_teamnet_routes, or list_ip_prefixes. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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