zms_get_resource_protection_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the 'Read-only' tag adds no new information. The description adds the requirement for ZSCALER_CUSTOMER_ID and the return content (counts and percentage), but does not mention pagination behavior despite having page_num and page_size parameters, which is a gap.

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 (three short sentences) and front-loads the purpose. It efficiently communicates key info without fluff, though it could be better structured with parameter hints.

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 an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, the two optional parameters are undocumented, and there is no guidance on pagination, which is a notable gap for a listing tool. Overall, it covers the main purpose but lacks completeness in parameter usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It fails to mention the two input parameters (page_num, page_size) or their purpose, leaving the agent with no guidance on how to use them to control pagination.

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 it gets a 'ZMS resource protection-status summary (curated aggregate view)', specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling `zms_get_resource_group_protection_status` by indicating this is a high-level summary.

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 implies a use case for a quick overview of protection coverage ('at a glance') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like `zms_get_resource_group_protection_status`. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are given.

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