zins_get_shadow_it_apps

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

With readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the empty-result interpretation and the time-window constraint. It doesn't delve into pagination or limit behavior, but the key behavioral nuances are covered.

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: two sentences plus a brief output-format line. Every sentence adds meaningful information without fluff. Ideal length for a tool description.

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?

The description covers the purpose, output format, empty-result semantics, and a key constraint, but lacks information on limit behavior, how to interpret risk/usage fields, and the relationship between start_days_ago and end_days_ago. Given the low schema coverage and no output schema, more detail on parameters and result interpretation would make it 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 coverage is only 17% (only query has a description). The description compensates partially by noting the 7/14-day window which directly relates to time parameters, but it does not explain limit, start_time, or end_time. The query parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description adds minimal value for that. Overall, only partial compensation 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 'Get discovered Shadow IT applications with risk and usage detail' and specifies the row-level output fields. It distinguishes from sibling 'zins_get_shadow_it_summary' by focusing on detailed per-app analytics rather than aggregation.

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: read-only analytics, empty result meaning, and the required 7- or 14-day window. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools (e.g., when to use this vs. summary) or mention any exclusions, so it's slightly incomplete.

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