get_content_versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces read-only with '[READ-ONLY]' and adds the underlying operation 'Executes: request content upgrade info,' which provides additional behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't add auth/rate limit details, but that is acceptable given annotations cover the safety profile.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The read-only marker is front-loaded, followed by purpose and execution detail. Every word earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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 read-only getter with one optional parameter, the description provides sufficient context. It names the resource, the categories, and the underlying command. It doesn't need to cover return details given no output schema and the informational nature of the tool, though it could have mentioned the output format.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information; the optional 'firewall' parameter is fully documented in the schema already with details about when it is required.

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 states a specific action ('Retrieves') and a specific resource ('content update versions') with the categories (antivirus, applications, threats). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_antivirus_version, which is narrower in scope.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies broader coverage by listing three content categories but doesn't name sibling tools or exclusion criteria. An agent could infer from the category list, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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