zcc_list_trusted_networks

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

The description says 'Read-only,' which matches the readOnlyHint annotation and is not contradictory. It adds the minor scoping detail 'by company,' but does not disclose return behavior, pagination, or potential quirks beyond what annotations already establish.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in one sentence. The second sentence 'Read-only' is redundant with the annotation, but the overall structure is efficient and free of unnecessary detail.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not mention return format, pagination behavior, or how the search/query parameters interact. The detailed query schema note helps, but the tool-level description leaves important context unresolved.

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 tool-level description adds no parameter meaning. The query parameter is well-documented in the schema itself, but page, search, and page_size have no explanation in either the schema or the description. With low schema coverage (25%), the description should compensate but does not.

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'), the resource ('ZCC trusted networks'), and the scope ('by company'). It is specific enough to distinguish this from the many sibling list tools, even though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of pagination, search behavior, or prerequisites. The description only states what it does, not how or when to use it.

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