Patch DB update status

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 known. The description adds extra context on exactly what status fields are returned (last update, next scheduled, automatic disable flag). No additional behavioral caveats are needed for a simple read-only status check.

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 action ('Retrieves') and immediately lists the key output components. Every word adds value, with no 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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool, the description adequately covers what it returns. It mentions the main fields, though it could briefly note the response type or edge cases (e.g., if no update has ever occurred), but that may be inferred from the listed fields.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document, and the description focuses on the output rather than inputs.

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 identifies the verb 'Retrieves' and the specific resource: the status of the ongoing or most recent vulnerability/patch database update. It enumerates the returned data (status, time, next scheduled update, automatic disable flag), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like patch_summary or patch_scan_details.

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 implies the use case (checking DB update status) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or list any exclusions. No alternative tools are mentioned, but the narrow scope provides clear context.

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