defender_get_file_statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral scope—organization-wide and worldwide prevalence plus first/last seen—but does not describe response shape, zero-result behavior, or pagination. With annotations carrying safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 short, purposeful sentences. The first states the core function and scope, and the second adds actionable triage context. There is no repetition of schema or annotation information and no wasted words.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it tells the agent what kind of data is returned (prevalence, first/last seen) and why that data matters. It could name exact return fields, but the simplicity of the operation does not demand much more.

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 the single parameter file_hash is fully described as 'SHA1 or SHA256 of the file.' The description adds no hash-specific semantics beyond referring to 'a file,' so it does not need to compensate for schema gaps. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('file'), and scope ('prevalence in this organization and worldwide, with first and last seen'). This clearly distinguishes it from file-focused siblings like defender_get_file_info, defender_get_file_alerts, and defender_get_file_machines.

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 provides clear context for use: it returns prevalence data and first/last seen, and the heuristic 'a file seen on one device and nowhere else is worth a closer look' signals a threat-triage use case. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is unambiguous enough for a simple read-only stats tool.

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