FortiMail Engine Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so 'Side effects: None' is largely redundant. However, the note that the detailed path requires an API key with sufficient scope adds genuine auth context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Labeled sections (Purpose/When to use/Inputs/Returns/Side effects) are front-loaded and terse; no sentence is filler.

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 zero-required-parameter health check this is nearly complete; the only soft spot is that with no output schema, 'JSON from the engine health endpoints' does not hint at what a healthy vs. unhealthy response looks like.

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 coverage is 100% and already describes the boolean, but the description adds the endpoint it selects (/health/detailed) and the scope requirement, giving meaning beyond the schema text.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (check connectivity to the FortiMail Engine) and scopes it to liveness plus optional readiness, which cleanly separates it from every CRUD sibling in the FortiMail namespace.

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?

Gives concrete triggers: after configuring env vars, or when other tools fail with network/auth errors. That is clear usage context, though it does not name an alternative tool or state when not to bother calling it.

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