ztw_list_ip_groups_lite

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description reinforces read-only but adds context about the lite endpoint and identical records, which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'lite' means in terms of payload, performance, or potential differences in response fields, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that immediately state the purpose and the key differentiator. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core action and resource.

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 simple list tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description covers the core function and sibling relationship. However, it omits details about what the lite endpoint changes (e.g., response size) and the use of the 'search' parameter, leaving minor but noticeable gaps that could affect proper 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?

Schema description coverage is only 50% (query is well-documented, but search has no description). The tool description does not mention any parameters, failing to compensate for the undocumented 'search' parameter or clarify its usage, leaving a semantic gap.

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 tool lists ZTW IP groups via a lite endpoint, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `ztw_list_ip_groups` by explicitly noting it uses the lite endpoint yet returns the same records, setting clear expectations.

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 names the alternative `ztw_list_ip_groups` and clarifies the relationship (same records, lite endpoint), effectively guiding the agent to use this version when a lighter call is preferred. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide detailed decision criteria, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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