zia_get_network_service

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

The description adds the detail that the result includes port definitions, but otherwise relies on the readOnlyHint annotation to convey safety. It does not disclose additional behaviors like error handling or prerequisites. Since annotations cover the read-only nature, the description adds minimal but useful context, not contradicting annotations.

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 efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no fluff or unnecessary words. It earns its place perfectly.

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 read-only annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. It states the resource and that it includes port definitions, but it does not describe the return format or any edge cases. Given the lack of an output schema, adding a bit more about what the returned object looks like would improve completeness, but it is not critically deficient.

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 schema has one required parameter service_id with no description coverage. The description only says 'by ID', which repeats the schema's parameter name without adding meaning about format, source, or validation. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the parameter, but it does not, so the parameter semantics are weak.

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 what the tool does: it retrieves a single ZIA network service by ID and includes port definitions. It is specific about the resource (network service) and the scope (single by ID), distinguishing it from siblings like the list tools. The mention of 'with its port definitions' adds specificity.

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 the tool is used when you have a specific service ID, likely obtained from a list operation. It states it fetches a single service, which contrasts with list tools that return all services. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the pattern is typical and clear.

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