Per-computer status of one patch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying the output content (installed/missing status, deployment remarks) and capabilities (filtering/pagination). No contradiction between description and 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds scope and capabilities. Every phrase earns its place: specific patch, applicable computers, installed/missing, deployment remarks, filtering, pagination. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only report tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid high-level return summary (installed/missing, deployment remarks) and notes filtering/pagination. It doesn't enumerate all filter options, but the schema covers those. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100% coverage, with detailed descriptions for all 10 parameters including enums, defaults, and usage notes (e.g., patchId references other list tools). The description only says 'Supports filtering,' adding no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Retrieves the installation status of a specific patch (by patch_id) on every applicable computer' — a specific verb (retrieves) and resource (patch status per computer). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on one patch across all computers, reinforced by the title 'Per-computer status of one patch' and contrasted with patch_all_patches_list which lists patches.

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 when to use this tool: when you need installation status of a specific patch across applicable computers. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough to guide selection.

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