zia_list_ip_destination_groups

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

The description is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true matches 'List'), so there's no contradiction. However, the description adds no behavioral nuance beyond what the annotations already declare — no throughput hints, no volume caveats, no note on result ordering. The annotation carries the safety information.

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 one short sentence with no waste, appropriately front-loaded with the verb. The heavy lifting is delegated to the schema's parameter description where it belongs. One sentence is sufficient here.

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 read-only list operation with good annotations and rich query-param docs, the description adequately covers the essentials. However, given the shallow nature of the tool (no output schema, no nested objects), a brief note on what fields appear in results or on pagination behavior would complete the picture.

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 50% schema coverage, the 'query' parameter is exceptionally well-described: it explains JMESPath syntax, warns about snake_case vs camelCase field naming pitfalls, and advises a first call without the parameter to discover keys. The 'search' param is undocumented, but the 'query' description more than compensates for the gap.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ('List' + 'ZIA IP destination groups') that clearly states what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish from near-identical siblings like ztw_list_ip_destination_groups and ztw_list_ip_destination_groups_lite, or explain how it differs from the singular zia_get_ip_destination_group.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. The sibling list contains several similarly-named tools (e.g., ztw_list_ip_destination_groups, zia_get_ip_destination_group), yet the description offers no scoping, preconditions, or explicit differentiation. The naming convention implies the usage context, but the description itself provides none.

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