zcc_list_forwarding_profiles

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true and the description's 'Read-only' are redundant, but the description adds contextual behavior by noting results are company-scoped. It does not disclose pagination behavior, response format, or any other side effects beyond read-only.

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, front-loaded sentence without fluff. Minor deduction for 'Read-only' being redundant with the annotation, but it is otherwise concise and well-structured.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description should mention return values, pagination, or scoping details. It only states the resource and read-only nature, leaving the agent without enough information to predict the response shape or handle pagination effectively.

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% (query param), and the tool description does not mention any parameter semantics. The query param has a detailed schema description, but page, search, and page_size are undocumented, and the description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 ('List') and explicitly names the resource ('ZCC forwarding profiles'), adding scope with '(by company)'. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like zcc_list_devices and zcc_list_trusted_networks, though it does not explicitly contrast with ZPA forwarding policy 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The parenthetical '(by company)' hints at scoping but does not explain when this tool is preferred over other list tools or any exclusions.

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