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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned content categories, but says nothing about authentication needs, caching, rate limits, or any other operational behavior 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 single, front-loaded sentence that names the resource and lists the return categories with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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, zero-parameter metadata endpoint with rich annotations and a dedicated output schema, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent what categories of information will be returned without needing to explain output structure or safety behavior, which are covered elsewhere.

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 takes no parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately avoids repeating schema details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ScanMalware API' root), then enumerates the exact fields returned: name, version, status, endpoints, and features. This makes the tool's scope clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related metadata endpoints like get_health or get_platform_stats.

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 states what the tool returns but gives no indication of when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, discovery workflows, or the sibling tools it might overlap with, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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