zpa_get_service_edge

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

The annotation already marks the tool as readOnlyHint=true. The description adds context beyond the annotation by listing the specific fields returned, confirming the read-only nature and detailing the behavioral scope ('full record including...'). No contradictions.

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 entire description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant words. Every piece of information serves a purpose.

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 read-only get-by-ID tool with an output schema (not shown but mentioned in context), the description lists all key returned fields. Combined with the readOnlyHint annotation and output schema, the description is fully adequate with no gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and all three parameters (service_edge_id, microtenant_id, service) are described concisely in the schema. The description only adds a generic 'by ID' reference, which doesn't enhance meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Get'), the specific resource ('ZPA Service Edge by ID'), and enumerates the data fields returned ('control-channel state, runtime status, version, location, enrollment certificate, and parent service edge group membership'). It differentiates from sibling tools like 'zpa_list_service_edges' which list multiple edges, and 'zpa_get_service_edge_group' which gets a group.

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 for retrieving a single ZPA Service Edge by ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'zpa_list_service_edges' for listing, or 'zpa_get_service_edge_group' for group info). No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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