zms_list_app_catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It goes beyond annotations by specifying the return granularity (one row per application plus nested port/protocol/process specs) and the prerequisite 'Requires ZSCALER_CUSTOMER_ID.' This is meaningful behavioral context, although it does not discuss pagination behavior or response edge cases.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core listing operation is stated immediately, followed by read-only status, return shape, use case, filtering/sorting, and auth requirement. Every sentence provides distinct value with no redundancy or filler.

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 7-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, return format, use case, supported filters/sorts, and a required environment variable. It does not mention pagination behavior explicitly, but page parameters exist in the schema with defaults, and the important query-parameter caveat is already documented in the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for reliable invocation.

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 schema description coverage at only 14%, the description compensates partially: it maps 'Filter by name/category' to the name/category parameters and 'sort by name/category/time' to sort_by/sort_order semantics. However, it does not clarify pagination parameters (page_num, page_size) or the sort_order value format, and the extensive query parameter explanation lives only in the schema, not the description.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource: 'List the ZMS application catalog.' It further clarifies the return shape ('one row per discovered application (id, name, category) plus its nested port/protocol/process specs') and distinguishes this from broad list tools by noting its role in policy planning. The name and description align clearly.

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?

Describes clear usage context: 'useful for policy planning' and states available filters/sorts, which tells the agent when this listing tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient for a straightforward read-only catalog listing.

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