zpa_get_pra_portal

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

The description adds 'read-only' which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, but provides no additional behavioral details such as response format, error handling, or required permissions. It does state it gets a single portal by ID, which is a basic behavioral trait not fully captured by 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without repetition 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (few parameters, output schema present, read-only annotation), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and could benefit from mentioning the relationship to sibling tools like 'zpa_list_pra_portals' for completeness.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, which already describes each parameter. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 'Get a specific ZPA PRA portal by ID (read-only)' clearly states the verb (Get), resource (ZPA PRA portal), and method (by ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'zpa_list_pra_portals' which lists all portals, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., having a portal ID) or scenarios where a different tool should be used. The usage context is implied only by the resource name.

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