zins_get_firewall_by_action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: false. The description adds that it is read-only analytics, matches the annotation, and provides additional behavioral context: the output structure (one row per action) and the window constraint. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, densely packed with the core purpose, output format, and a critical constraint. It is front-loaded with the action, has no filler, and every sentence provides value.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description gives the essential output (one row per action) and a critical window constraint, but it omits details about the time parameters, pagination, and the meaning of the returned fields. The query parameter is well-documented in the schema, but the other parameters remain vague. The description is adequate but leaves gaps that could be filled.

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 only 17% (only the 'query' parameter has a description). The description adds a key constraint on the time window (must be 7- or 14-day) but does not explicitly explain any of the time-related parameters (start_time, end_time, start_days_ago, end_days_ago) or the 'limit' parameter. It provides some compensation for the low coverage but is incomplete.

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 retrieves Zero Trust Firewall traffic grouped by action, and specifies the output as one row per action with aggregated totals. It uses a specific verb ('get'), resource ('Zero Trust Firewall traffic'), and grouping ('by action'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like zins_get_firewall_by_location.

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 for analyzing allow/block splits in firewall traffic and explicitly constrains the time window to 7- or 14-day intervals. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the purpose is clear and the constraint provides practical guidance.

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