zins_get_firewall_network_services

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only (readOnlyHint: true). The description adds that it provides analytics, implying no side effects, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or parameter validation behavior. With annotations covering safety, the description provides minimal extra transparency, earning a 3.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's core function and output. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids extraneous 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?

Given the presence of a comprehensive input schema and output schema (indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), the description adequately covers the high-level purpose and output types. It could mention the required time interval or alternative parameter sets, but the schema fills those gaps. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a read-only analytics tool.

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?

All five parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any explanatory value for the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 provides 'firewall network service usage analytics' and lists specific included elements (port usage, protocol activity, service breakdowns). It uses a specific verb-resource pair, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like 'zins_get_firewall_by_action' or 'zia_list_network_services', which would elevate it to a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative firewall analytics or listing tools (e.g., zins_get_firewall_by_action). It lacks any 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' context, making it difficult for an agent to select the correct tool without external knowledge.

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