get_antivirus_version

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by revealing that it executes a `show system info` command and extracts signature fields, giving the agent insight into the underlying behavior and scope. This is genuine added context beyond the annotations, though it stops short of describing authentication or rate-limit requirements.

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 compact and front-loaded: it presents the primary result in the first sentence and the execution method in the second. The only minor waste is the redundant `[READ-ONLY]` prefix, which duplicates the annotation and adds no new information. It is otherwise tight and efficient, warranting a 4 rather than a 5.

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 a single optional parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description gives a reasonable summary of what data is returned (versions and release dates). However, because there is no output schema, it would be helpful to state the return structure or at least clarify how the results are presented. It also leaves the relationship to siblings like `get_wildfire_status` unaddressed, which keeps it at an acceptable but not complete level.

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 input schema has one optional parameter (`firewall`) with a complete description (100% coverage), so the schema alone adequately documents the parameter. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or constraint about the parameter, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage. No compensation is needed.

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 retrieves current antivirus, threat, and WildFire signature versions and release dates, naming the resource and data extracted. It also cites the underlying command (`show system info`) which reinforces the purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like `get_wildfire_status` or `get_content_versions`, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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 explicit 'use when' or 'use instead' guidance, and no mention of alternatives. The implied usage is clear from the description—an agent would know to call this when it needs antivirus/threat/WildFire signature versions—but no exclusions or comparisons are provided. This meets the 'implied usage' level, not the clearer guidance of higher scores.

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