zcell_list_iccid_violations

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, and the description reinforces it with 'Read-only.' It adds useful behavioral context by specifying that individual violation events are returned with event type, zone, and timestamp, and by clarifying the per-ICCID and policy_id scoping. No contradictions with 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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the exact action, and the second adds scope and return details without repetition or filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately covers the main return fields and key parameters. It lacks explicit details about ordering, pagination, or default lookback behavior, but the schema supplies the days default and the read-only annotation covers safety, making this reasonably 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?

The tool description compensates for the low 25% schema coverage by explaining the roles of iccid, policy_id, and days in relation to the returned violations. The only schema-described parameter, query, is already thoroughly documented in the schema itself, so its absence from the description is acceptable.

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 identifies the exact resource: anomaly-policy violation events for one ICCID, scoped by policy_id and a days lookback window. It also names the returned event fields (event type, zone, timestamp), clearly distinguishing it from broader sibling tools like zcell_list_anomaly_policy_violations.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for retrieving violation events for a single ICCID under a given policy_id over a lookback window, which implies the appropriate use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5, but the context is unambiguous.

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