zcell_list_sim_analytics_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description redundantly states 'Read-only.' It does add that the tool returns a 'SIM-count breakdown for the tenant,' which clarifies the output scope, but it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as response format, pagination, or performance characteristics. Since annotations already cover the read-only nature, the description adds limited extra value.

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 concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second clarifies read-only status and return type. There is no unnecessary verbosity or repetition, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple—a summary list with an optional query parameter. The description states the exact counts provided (total/used/active/inactive) and that it applies to the tenant. The query parameter is thoroughly documented in the schema. Given the tool's simplicity and schema coverage, the description is 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 description does not mention the optional 'query' parameter, but the schema provides a detailed explanation of its JMESPath usage, including examples and a warning about field names. With 100% schema description coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not need to add further parameter semantics.

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 Zscaler Cellular SIM status summary' and specifies the contents: 'total/used/active/inactive.' It is specific about the resource (SIM status summary) and the scope (for the tenant), distinguishing it from other list tools like zcell_list_sim_usage_by_sim.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, alternative tools, or conditions. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent without context on when it is the appropriate choice among the many sibling list tools.

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