zcc_list_trusted_networks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms 'read-only'. It adds behavioral info about JMESPath client-side filtering. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or any limits, which are relevant for a list tool. The description adds some value beyond annotations but is not comprehensive.

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 main action. It contains no fluff or redundant information. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, output schema exists, annotations present), the description covers the core purpose and highlights filtering capability. It does not explain pagination or search, but the schema provides that. The output schema exists so return values are covered. It lacks some context like prerequisites, but overall it is sufficiently 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the 'query' parameter by mentioning JMESPath filtering, which is helpful. However, it does not explain the other parameters (page, page_size, search, service) beyond what the schema already provides. The additional value is marginal.

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 returns a list of trusted networks in the Client Connector Portal. The verb 'Returns' and specific resource 'Trusted Networks' make the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from many other list tools among siblings beyond the resource name, so it's not exceptional.

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 description mentions JMESPath filtering but does not explain when this tool is appropriate compared to other list tools or when to avoid it. Usage context is missing.

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