zia_get_ip_destination_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description adds the useful context that the response includes 'full members.' This extra detail about response content goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions found.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. No extraneous information; every word contributes to the meaning.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It states the resource, the input, and the response includes full members. It doesn't discuss errors or authentication, but given the simplicity and read-only annotation, it's adequately complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It maps the only parameter, group_id, to 'by ID,' making the parameter's purpose clear. While minimal, it directly clarifies the parameter's role, adequately compensating for the lack of schema documentation.

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 (get), the resource (ZIA IP destination group), and the method (by ID), and adds 'with full members' to distinguish from list tools. It unambiguously identifies the exact object type and operation, setting it apart from sibling list tools like zia_list_ip_destination_groups.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is used when a specific group ID is known, and the contrast with list tools is implicit. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list tools, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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