zcell_list_anomaly_policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description repeats 'Read-only' without adding further behavioral context (e.g., auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects). It does add the lookback window constraint, but overall the description provides minimal incremental transparency beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Read-only' phrase is redundant with the annotation. It is efficient 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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and low schema documentation coverage, the description should explain pagination (page/size) and filtering (policy_type). It only covers the 'days' parameter, leaving significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 schema has 5 parameters with only 20% description coverage (only 'query' has a schema description). The description adds meaning for the 'days' parameter (lookback window) but does not explain 'page', 'size', or 'policy_type'. Since schema coverage is low (<50%), the description must compensate but fails to do so for most parameters.

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 verb 'List', identifies the resource 'Zscaler Cellular anomaly policies', and specifies the per-policy fields returned (id, name, type, enabled state, run status, applied SIM location groups, violation count). It also mentions the lookback window parameter, distinguishing this tool from siblings that deal with other Zscaler domains.

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 implies usage for listing anomaly policies and hints at chaining with anomaly-policy logs and violations tools via the returned id, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not scenarios or exclusions.

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