zia_get_network_service

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description repeats 'read-only' but adds no further behavioral details (e.g., error handling, authorization). With annotations present, the burden is lower, but no new value is added beyond the annotation.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No unnecessary words. Perfectly structured for quick comprehension.

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 only 2 parameters, an output schema, and annotations indicating read-only, the description is mostly complete. It lacks any hint about the return structure or common properties, but the output schema fills that gap. Slightly better would be to mention the resource type includes key fields, but not necessary.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage hints for the parameters (e.g., accepted formats for service_id, or when to set service). 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 (Get), resource (ZIA network service), and mechanism (by ID). It also flags the operation as read-only, which distinguishes it from mutation tools. The sibling tools include zia_list_network_services, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 usage when you have a specific service ID and need details. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like zia_list_network_services for listing all, but the context of a retrieval tool is clear. Lacking explicit when-not or alternative references, but still functional.

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