get_zpa_trusted_network

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

The description adds the capability of looking up by ID or name beyond annotations. Annotations already specify read-only, and the description repeats that, which is redundant. It does not disclose pagination or return format, but with readOnlyHint true and no contradictory info, this is adequate.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the main actions. No filler, and the read-only note is useful. Perfectly sized.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It only covers list vs lookup but leaves pagination, query semantics, and parameter purposes unexplained. The absence of an output schema increases the need for description to indicate what is returned, which it does not do. Incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 20% (query param). The description hints that name and network_id are used for lookup, but does not explain page, page_size, or the query behavior. It does not compensate for the low coverage; the agent would need to rely on bare parameter names. The query param has its own detailed description, but that's not part of the tool's description.

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 clearly states it lists ZPA trusted networks or looks one up by ID or name. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes the tool from others targeting different resource types (e.g., rules, segments). Comprehensive enough for the agent to understand the primary actions.

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 clarifies the two modes (list all vs. look up by ID/name), making it evident when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are for different resource types, so the niche is clear. A more explicit 'use list for all, lookup for specific' would be better, but the context is sufficient.

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