zia_list_static_ips

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint:true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., pagination, output format, rate limits). Since annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate for not adding contradicting info but also not enriching beyond the schema.

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 sentence, immediate and front-loaded with the verb and object. There is zero filler; every word contributes to the purpose. It is concise to an appropriate degree for a straightforward list operation.

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?

The description is extremely minimal, and given there is no output schema, it does not clarify expected outputs or the effect of the 'search' parameter. It also does not mention any limitations or the need for authentication. For a tool with two parameters—one undocumented—the description is insufficiently complete.

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 50% (query has a detailed description, search has none). The tool description itself adds no parameter information, failing to compensate for the undocumented 'search' parameter. The query parameter's detailed explanation resides in the schema, not the description, so the description provides no additional semantic value.

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: 'List' the resource 'ZIA static IPs'. It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like zia_get_static_ip which retrieves a single static IP, 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use zia_get_static_ip or other list tools. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, filtering, or exclusions. The user must infer from the name alone.

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