zpa_get_service_edge_group

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

The description adds '(read-only)' which is already indicated by the readOnlyHint annotation. It provides no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotation already conveys, such as what happens on missing ID or required permissions.

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 very concise (one clause), front-loaded with the action and resource. It is efficient, though it could be slightly expanded to add more value without becoming verbose.

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 is a simple get-by-ID operation with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not cover potential error cases or response behavior, but for a straightforward read operation it is sufficient.

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%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description only mentions 'by ID' which aligns with the group_id parameter, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('a specific ZPA service edge group'), and the method ('by ID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like zpa_list_service_edge_groups (which lists all) and other get tools for different ZPA resources.

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 when you know the group ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like zpa_list_service_edge_groups or other get tools. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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