zpa_get_provisioning_key

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

The description includes '(read-only)', which aligns with the annotation 'readOnlyHint: true'. No contradictions. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations, confirming the idempotent read nature. It does not disclose other behavioral traits like error handling or response details.

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 sentence with no extraneous words or repetition. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and required parameters. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has 2 required parameters, no output schema, and low complexity. The description covers the essential purpose and inputs, but lacks details on the return value, error scenarios, or any prerequisites. For a simple get-by-ID tool, this is minimally adequate but not 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?

The input schema has two parameters (key_id, key_type) with no descriptions (0% schema coverage). The tool description mentions them by name ('ID and type') but provides no explanation of their meaning, valid values, or format. For 'key_type', the enum values 'connector' and 'service_edge' are not elaborated. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond naming the parameters.

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 resource ('ZPA provisioning key'), and the identifying parameters ('by ID and type'). It also marks it as 'read-only', distinguishing it from mutation tools. The sibling list includes 'zpa_list_provisioning_keys', which lists all keys, so this get-by-ID variant is well-differentiated.

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 usage context by mentioning the two required parameters (ID and type), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'zpa_list_provisioning_keys'. However, the name and brevity suggest it's for fetching a single specific key, which is clear enough for an agent.

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