get_zpa_trusted_network

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

The description states 'read-only,' which aligns with the annotation readOnlyHint=true. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether the tool returns paginated results, what happens if no match is found, or any rate limits. The annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description adds limited value.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word is necessary—no fluff, no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description does not explain return values or structure. Parameters are partially described. However, the tool is simple (list/lookup), and annotations cover read-only safety. The description is adequate for basic use but lacks completeness in specifying behavior (e.g., pagination, error handling).

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?

The input schema has three parameters (name, query, network_id), but only 33% schema coverage (query has a description). The description mentions lookup by 'ID or name' but does not explain the exact parameters or their interaction (e.g., what happens if both name and network_id are provided). The query parameter is not referenced at all in the description. Given low schema coverage, the description insufficiently compensates.

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 the action (list or lookup) and the resource (ZPA trusted networks). It distinguishes between listing all and looking up by ID or name, and explicitly marks it as read-only. This provides a specific verb-resource pairing and differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It simply describes the function. While the read-only hint is present, there is no guidance on context or comparison with similar tools.

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