zcell_list_sims

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

The description reinforces the readOnlyHint annotation ('Read-only (browses the inventory)') and adds concrete behavioral context: it returns a page of curated SIM records plus an aggregate usage/pagination envelope. No contradictions are present; it could add authentication or rate-limit caveats, but the annotation already covers the safety profile.

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 3-4 sentences with no filler; the first sentence states the action, the second clarifies read-only behavior and return shape, and the third lists filter categories. It packs substantial guidance into a compact space.

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 15-parameter list tool without an output schema, the description covers the core semantics: purpose, read-only nature, return envelope, and filter categories. It omits pagination defaults and exact filter syntax, but the presence of a detailed query-param description and the broad filter list make it mostly 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?

With only 7% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by grouping filterable fields (ICCID, status, network status, country, tag, device attributes, IMEI lock status). It doesn't map these to exact parameter names or define value formats, and pagination parameters are only implied, not explained.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Search') tied to a concrete resource ('the Zscaler Cellular SIM inventory'), and clarifies it supports filters and pagination. This clearly differentiates it from sibling list tools like zcell_list_sim_usage_by_sim, which target usage rather than inventory.

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?

It establishes clear context as a read-only inventory browser and lists the available filter dimensions, making it easy to know when this tool fits. However, it never explicitly names alternatives (e.g., zcell_get_sim_details) or says when not to use it, so it misses the exclusion part.

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