list_available_firmware

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full load: it discloses that results combine remote FortiGuard server data with locally imported versions, frames the call as read-only ('list'), and documents the success/error status in the return. It stops short of noting auth requirements, remote-call latency, or result-size limits, which matter for a tool that reaches out to FDS.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose and the sibling distinction before the Args/Returns/Example blocks. The example block is somewhat redundant given the Returns section, but nothing is genuinely wasted.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still outlines version_list entries, which removes any ambiguity about nested shape. For a two-optional-param read tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 0% — the JSON schema has only titles and null defaults — so the description must compensate, and it mostly does: it gives a concrete platform example string, states that omitting platform returns all platforms, and gives product codes with an example. Neither parameter's exact matching semantics (e.g. exact string match vs prefix) is spelled out.

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 (list available firmware versions) and immediately scopes it: the catalog of what CAN be installed, merged from FortiGuard FDS and admin-imported versions. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_firmware_images, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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 clear selection context by naming list_firmware_images as the alternative for already-downloaded images, and notes the omit-platform behavior for an all-platforms sweep. It does not address the other closely related siblings (get_firmware_upgrade_path, upgrade_device_firmware), so the routing is not fully exhaustive.

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