zdx_list_applications

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

The description explicitly says 'Read-only', which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds no contradiction. It goes beyond annotations by disclosing the response shape ('one row per application (id, name, ZDX score, impact signals)') and filterable dimensions, though it does not mention pagination, ordering, or rate limits.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details, filters, and chaining advice. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description clearly states what will be returned: 'id, name, ZDX score, impact signals'. It also covers all filter dimensions and provides follow-up tool links. It lacks explicit sorting/pagination details, but for a read-only list tool with no required parameters, the coverage is adequate.

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 20% schema description coverage, the description compensates by naming the filter categories 'location/department/geo' and the '`since` HOURS window', which maps to the otherwise undocumented geo_id, location_id, department_id, and since parameters. The long `query` param is already well-described in the schema, so the description adds meaning for the remaining params without redundancy.

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 'List active ZDX applications', a specific verb+resource statement that clearly identifies the tool's function. It further distinguishes the tool by specifying the returned fields ('id, name, ZDX score, impact signals') and explicitly names related sibling tools for chaining, which sets it apart from other list tools.

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 clear usage context: 'Filter by location/department/geo and the `since` HOURS window' tells when and how to apply filters. It also gives next-step guidance with 'Use a returned `id` with zdx_get_application...' though it stops short of explicitly saying when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives.

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