zins_get_firewall_network_services

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

The description states 'Read-only analytics,' which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds useful context about the data being historical and grouped, but lacks disclosure of other behaviors such as whether filtering is available or how pagination works. With annotations already indicating read-only nature, the description provides moderate additional transparency.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds detail on the output, and the third provides a critical usage constraint. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

With 6 parameters and no required parameters, the description does not explain the default time range (9 days ago to 2 days ago) or the meaning of limit. There is no output schema, and the return format is not described. The tool is simple but the description leaves important details for the agent to guess.

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%), with only the 'query' parameter having a description. The description does not add meaning for other parameters like limit, start_time, end_time, or the days_ago defaults. The window constraint is mentioned but does not map to specific parameters. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 network service, with each row representing a network service and its aggregated total. It also specifies it is read-only analytics, distinguishing it from similar tools like zins_get_firewall_by_action or 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only constraint mentioned is that the window must be a 7- or 14-day historical interval, but there is no explanation of when to choose this over other firewall traffic tools.

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