zins_get_firewall_by_location

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description reinforces with 'Read-only analytics'. It adds value by specifying the window constraint and output structure (one row per location). No contradictions.

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 very concise: three sentences front-loaded with purpose and key constraints. No redundant information.

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 analytics tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides high-level purpose and constraints but lacks parameter usage details and output format. It is adequate but not 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 only 17% (only 'query' parameter described). The description does not explain the date parameters (start_time, end_time, start_days_ago, end_days_ago) or limit, beyond the window hint. Parameters are not explained, failing to compensate for low coverage.

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 location, and specifies it includes one row per location with id/name/total. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like zins_get_firewall_by_action by focusing on location grouping.

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 states the tool is 'for ranking which sites drive the most firewall traffic' and enforces a 7- or 14-day window. While it does not explicitly list alternatives, the context implies when to use location-based grouping. No when-not-to-use guidance.

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