zpa_list_forwarding_policy_rules

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

The description says 'read-only', which redundantly echoes the readOnlyHint=true annotation. It adds no new behavioral context beyond the annotation—no mention of pagination, filtering, or response format. Since annotations already cover the safety profile, the description contributes minimal value here.

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, concise sentence with no fluff. Every word is functional, and it is easy to scan. It is appropriately brief for a simple listing operation, though it could benefit from a bit more detail 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and only readOnly annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the rules contain, how to paginate, what 'search' and 'microtenant_id' do, or what the response looks like. The schema provides some help for 'query', but overall the description under-specifies the tool's behavior and parameters.

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 tool has 5 parameters (page, query, search, page_size, microtenant_id) but the description does not explain any of them. Only the 'query' parameter has a schema description (20% coverage), leaving the others undocumented in both schema and description. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not, providing zero guidance on parameter usage.

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 ('List') and the resource ('ZPA client forwarding policy rules'). It is specific enough to distinguish from other policy rule tools like zpa_list_access_policy_rules, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The 'read-only' qualifier adds a behavioral note but does not differentiate the primary purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other list policy tools (e.g., access, isolation, timeout). No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative suggestions are provided. The description merely states what it does, leaving usage decisions entirely to the agent.

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