get_zpa_app_protection_profile

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

The tool description's '(read-only)' aligns with and reinforces the annotation readOnlyHint=true, with no contradiction. The description adds the '(inspection)' clarification, but the most substantive behavioral disclosure (the snake_case vs. camelCase warning and 'call once without query' advice) lives in the `query` parameter schema, not the tool description.

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 12-word sentence communicates the action (list), the resource (ZPA App Protection profiles), a disambiguation ((inspection)), a filtering option (by name), and safety (read-only). Every word earns its place — true conciseness.

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 leaf-level read-only list tool with no output schema and all-optional parameters, the description is nearly complete. Combined with the extensive `query` parameter documentation, an agent is well-equipped. Minor gaps: no explicit note on pagination behavior, default limits, or when to use this 'profile' tool vs. its 'rule' or 'credential' counterparts.

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 only 25% (solely `query`), which is well below the 80% threshold, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'filter by name' covers the `name` parameter, and the `query` parameter gets an exemplar schema description. However, `page` and `page_size` have no documentation beyond their self-evident names, and the description provides no additional semantics for them.

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 pairing ('List ZPA App Protection (inspection) profiles') and adds the parenthetical '(inspection)' to disambiguate the resource, plus clarifies the read-only safety profile. It clearly states what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from closely named siblings like `zpa_list_app_protection_rules` or `get_zpa_posture_profile`.

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?

'or filter by name' gives a concrete invocation pattern, and '(read-only)' signals it's safe to call without side effects. There is no when-to-use vs. alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of exclusions like pagination defaults — the usage is implied rather than explicit.

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