zia_get_ip_destination_group

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, establishing the tool as a safe, closed-world read. The description adds only 'with full members', which hints at completeness but does not disclose additional traits like authorization needs or rate limits. With annotations present, the description contributes minimal behavioral context.

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 of 12 words, containing the verb, resource, identifier, and a distinguishing feature. Every word serves a purpose, achieving high conciseness without sacrificing clarity.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality but omits details about the return value structure. While annotations handle safety, the lack of output format information leaves some ambiguity about what 'full members' entails.

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?

The sole parameter 'group_id' is described only implicitly as 'by ID' in the tool description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the parameter's format, constraints, or expected values, but it does not. The bare mention adds little beyond the parameter name itself.

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'), the identifier ('by ID'), and an additional detail ('with full members'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'zia_list_ip_destination_groups' by indicating a single item retrieval with complete data.

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 implies use when a single group with full details is needed, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. While the phrase 'with full members' hints at a difference from list endpoints, no direct guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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