zins_get_firewall_network_services

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces with 'Read-only analytics.' It adds value by describing the output shape and the window constraint, which are not in the schema. Does not specify behavior on invalid windows, but sufficient given annotations.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the main action, no fluff. Every sentence adds necessary context.

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 no output schema, it covers the essential behavior: grouping, row semantics, and window restriction. Missing explicit parameter mapping and pagination (via limit) but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds the key window constraint and output meaning, but does not map this to start_time/end_time or start_days_ago/end_days_ago parameters. Limit and query are left to schema or defaults, which is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

Specific verb+noun: 'Get Zero Trust Firewall traffic grouped by network service' distinguishes it from sibling tools like zins_get_firewall_by_action and zins_get_firewall_by_location. The added detail 'One row per network service (protocol/port) with its aggregated total' clarifies the output granularity.

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?

Provides clear context: 'grouped by network service' and the constraint 'Window must be a 7- or 14-day historical interval' guide when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, though the grouping distinction is implied by sibling names.

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