zcell_list_sim_analytics_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds a redundant 'Read-only.' statement and explains the output fields (ICCIDs, IMSIs, tags). It does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or result ordering. Given the annotations cover safety, the description adds some context but not significant behavioral transparency beyond what annotations already provide.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence earns its place. It avoids redundancy and fluff, covering purpose, read-only nature, output contents, and optional filtering in a compact format.

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 no output schema, the description provides a high-level summary of the returned data (ICCIDs, IMSIs, tags) which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output. It also mentions optional scoping. However, it does not address potential pagination, result limits, or any performance implications, which might be expected for a list operation. Given the tool's simplicity and annotations, this is reasonably complete but not exhaustive.

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 description adds meaning for the icc_ids parameter by stating 'Optionally scope to specific ICCIDs', which is not explained in the schema (only schema coverage is 50% for the query parameter). The query parameter has a detailed schema description, but the tool description does not mention it. Overall, the description enhances understanding of icc_ids, though it doesn't provide details on the format or usage of query beyond what the schema already offers.

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 'List Zscaler Cellular SIM map points' with a parenthetical clarifying it's a dashboard lat/lng summary. It specifies the resource (SIM map points) and the verb (List), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like zcell_list_sims (general SIM list) and zcell_list_sim_analytics_summary (summary variant) by focusing on map point data with lat/lng context.

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 provides context about what data backs the fleet map, implying use cases for map visualization, and mentions optional scoping to specific ICCIDs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like zcell_list_sim_analytics_summary or zcell_list_sims, nor does it provide any exclusionary guidance.

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