zia_geo_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description reinforces read-only nature but does not add significant behavioral details beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff. Information is front-loaded and each word contributes meaning. Perfectly concise for the level of detail provided.

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?

Given low schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves many gaps: no output format description, no parameter dependencies, no error handling. It gives a high-level overview but is insufficient for full understanding without additional inference.

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?

Description maps actions to resolution types but does not explicitly tie parameters (latitude, longitude, ip, prefix) to their respective actions. Schema coverage is low (17%), and the description partially compensates by listing the three modes but lacks parameter-level clarity.

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 clearly states the tool resolves ZIA geo data by three methods (coordinates, IP, city prefix) and marks it read-only. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, most of which are unrelated to geo resolution.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists three actions but does not explain selection criteria, prerequisites, or context. Sibling tools cover many domains, but no comparative advice is given.

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