zpa_get_forwarding_policy_rule

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

The description repeats the read-only nature already captured by the annotation 'readOnlyHint: true', adding no additional behavioral context such as error handling, rate limits, or dependencies. With annotations already providing the key behavioral trait, the description adds no new value.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence) and front-loaded, but it omits essential information about parameters and usage. While not verbose, the brevity sacrifices completeness, making it only marginally acceptable.

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 0% schema coverage, lack of output schema, and two parameters, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly. It provides no context about what the rule ID represents, how to obtain it, or what the response contains, making it incomplete for effective 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameter semantics, but it does not. Neither 'rule_id' nor 'microtenant_id' are described, leaving the agent to guess their purpose and format. The description completely fails to add meaning beyond the schema's basic structure.

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 action ('Get'), the specific resource ('one ZPA client forwarding policy rule'), and explicitly notes it is read-only. This effectively differentiates from sibling tools like 'zpa_list_forwarding_policy_rules' which retrieves multiple rules, and other policy rule getters.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'zpa_list_forwarding_policy_rules' or other policy rule getters. It does not specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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