zcell_list_region_operational_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds 'Read-only.' (redundant) but also specifies the response content: each configured region, BC/AC status blocks, and MAP A-C/B-C link statuses. This goes beyond annotations and gives useful behavioral context without contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by return details. There is no filler; even the 'Read-only.' duplication is minimal and harmless. Perfectly sized and 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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and high-level return format. However, it leaves `bc_size` entirely undocumented and does not mention any field-level details or pagination/error behavior. Adequate but with a clear gap on the second parameter.

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 50%, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The `query` parameter is well-documented in the schema, but `bc_size` has no schema description and the tool description never mentions it. This leaves a significant gap that the description fails to compensate for.

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?

Description starts with 'List Zscaler Cellular configured regions with their operational status', using a specific verb and resource with clear scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling zcell_list_regions by focusing on operational status and enumerating the returned status blocks (BC/AC, MAP link statuses).

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 usage is implied: use this tool to fetch operational status of configured regions. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over similar siblings like zcell_list_regions, nor does it give when-not-to-use guidance. The 'Read-only.' line provides minor context but no alternatives.

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