zpa_list_access_policy_rules

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

The description only says 'read-only,' which is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation. It discloses no additional behavioral context such as pagination defaults, response shape, filtering semantics, or any API-specific side effects, so the description adds little beyond the 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?

A concise one-sentence description with no waste. It is easy to parse, but it is so terse that it borders on under-specification, so it loses the top score for completeness of expression.

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?

With 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no tool-level explanation of pagination/search behavior, this description is minimal. The valuable JMESPath guidance lives only in the query parameter's schema description, not in the tool description, leaving an incomplete picture for a complex list operation.

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 only 20% (query), and the tool description itself mentions none of the five parameters. page, page_size, search, and microtenant_id are left to inference from names, while the description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('List') and an exact resource ('ZPA access policy rules'), so the core purpose is immediately clear. It does not explicitly contrast with zpa_get_access_policy_rule or the other ZPA policy/list siblings, but the verb and resource are enough to avoid basic confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over zpa_get_access_policy_rule or the other list_* policy-rule tools. The description simply states the action and read-only nature, with no alternatives, prerequisites, or selection criteria.

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