zia_get_location_group

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds no extra behavioral context such as permissions, rate limits, or return format. The description is neutral and consistent with the annotations, but it offers no additional transparency beyond the structured info. Per the rubric, with annotations, credit for extra context is minimal, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence of nine words that conveys the essential purpose without any filler. It is front-loaded and contains only the necessary information, earning a top score for conciseness.

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?

This is a simple get operation with one parameter, a readOnlyHint annotation, and no output schema. The description is minimal but sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function. It aligns with the expectation for a straightforward resource-fetching tool. While it doesn't explain what a location group is, the tool name and sibling context provide enough context. Given the simplicity and available annotations, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter `group_id`. The phrase 'by ID' implies that group_id is the identifier, but it doesn't explain the expected format, constraints, or any relation to other objects. With only one parameter and a self-explanatory name, the description provides minimal added value, but given the low coverage, it should offer more detail. This falls below the baseline of 3.

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 tool gets a single ZIA location group by ID. It uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource ('ZIA location group') and the distinguishing criterion ('by ID'), which differentiates it from the sibling tool zia_list_location_groups that lists 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?

While the description doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, the context is clear: this retrieves one specific group by its ID, implying it should be used when a single group is needed. It provides clear context without exclusions, meeting the 'clear context' criterion for a score of 4.

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