Show appliance identity and health

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open world), yet the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: serial/firmware live in the response envelope not the body, and unreported fields are omitted rather than null so an absent key is meaningful. This is exactly the kind of quirk disclosure that prevents an agent from misreading the result.

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 purpose and field list are front-loaded in the first sentence, which is the part that drives selection. The remaining sentences on envelope placement and omitted keys are long and drift into FortiOS API internals, which is informative for interpretation but heavier than strictly needed.

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?

An output schema exists so the description rightly avoids explaining return structure, and annotations carry the safety profile. It is nearly complete, only missing any guidance on the optional 'target' parameter's default behavior or when a multi-appliance scenario applies.

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% and the single 'target' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description carries no additional parameter burden. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds nothing beyond the schema here.

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 ('Report') and resource ('appliance identity and health') and then enumerates the concrete fields returned: model, serial, firmware, load. Combined with the title, an agent can immediately distinguish this single-status tool from the surrounding list_* siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: the field list (identity, health) makes the intended situation clear, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named versus siblings like find_device or search_config. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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