zins_get_firewall_by_location

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only analytics.' It adds a behavioral constraint (window length) and describes output granularity, which goes beyond annotations. It does not disclose potential pitfalls like the JMESPath query intricacies, but those are captured in the parameter schema, so the description adds sufficient context without contradiction.

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 concise and front-loaded: first sentence names the action and resource, second gives output shape and use case, third states the constraint. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is relatively complete for the main intent but leaves gaps: it does not explain how to specify the window via parameters (e.g., using days_ago vs absolute times), nor does it clarify the meaning of 'total' or pagination. The implicit default (start_days_ago=9, end_days_ago=2) aligns with a 7-day interval but is not stated explicitly. It also omits any mention of the 'limit' parameter.

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 coverage is low (17%: only the 'query' parameter has a description). The description adds meaning to time-related parameters by specifying the allowed window (7- or 14-day interval), which helps interpret start_time/end_time and days_ago parameters. However, it does not explain 'limit' or other parameters, and it does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions for all parameters.

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 gets Zero Trust Firewall traffic grouped by location, with an explicit output shape (one id/name/total row per location) and a stated use case (ranking sites by traffic). It distinguishes from siblings like zins_get_firewall_by_action (by action) and zins_get_web_traffic_by_location (web traffic) by the resource and 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 it is for ranking which sites drive the most firewall traffic and imposes a window constraint (7- or 14-day historical interval), giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or scenarios where not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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