zia_geo_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description repeats '(read-only)', reinforcing safety. However, no additional behavioral traits are disclosed (e.g., rate limits, response format, or dependencies). With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds minimal 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys the core function.

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 the tool has multiple sub-actions and an output schema (not shown), the description is sufficient for an agent to understand its purpose. It could mention that results depend on the action, but overall, it's complete enough for a read-only lookup tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description summarizes the action enum ('coordinates, IP, or city prefix') but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Perform', the resource 'ZIA geographic lookups', and specifies the three lookup types (coordinates, IP, city prefix). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are mostly about getting or listing various ZIA entities.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions geographic lookups, it lacks guidance on when not to use it or suggestions for other tools (e.g., zia_url_lookup for URL lookups). Implied usage is clear but no explicit context.

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