zpa_list_provisioning_keys

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

The description repeats the annotation's readOnlyHint by stating 'read-only', but adds no further behavioral context (e.g., pagination, rate limits, or effect of invalid key_type). With annotations already covering safety, the description fails to provide additional useful 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 concise sentence that front-loads the action. It wastes no words, though it could include a bit more useful information without losing conciseness.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not mention the return format, pagination, or how to use optional parameters for filtering. The context is incomplete for effective tool invocation.

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 description does not explain any parameters beyond the schema. With only 25% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for missing parameter documentation, especially for 'search' and 'microtenant_id'. It does not, leaving these parameters ambiguous.

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 provisioning keys', with qualifiers 'of a given type' and 'read-only'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'zpa_get_provisioning_key' which retrieves a single key. However, it does not explicitly mention that it lists all keys of the specified type.

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 guidelines are provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'zpa_get_provisioning_key'. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context-specific advice.

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