get_fortiguard_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that it synthesizes findings (failing servers, stale signatures, disabled schedule) and explains an edge case (free eval license reports FortiGuard unavailable by design). It does not state auth requirements or whether live queries make the call slow, which are the remaining gaps.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every clause corresponds to real output content, so little is wasted despite the dense, semicolon-heavy sentence. It is on the long side but earns its length through specificity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns, and it does comprehensively — enumerating the fields reported and the derived findings. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the result 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?

Only one parameter (vdom) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no extra meaning about the vdom argument, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 states precisely what the tool reports: FortiGuard connection state, per-server reachability and packet loss, update schedule, licensed services, and signature database age. It reads as a status/read tool, implicitly distinct from the mutating sibling update_fortiguard. It never explicitly names a sibling to differentiate, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus update_fortiguard, get_license_status, or get_firmware_status, all of which live nearby. The description covers content, not invocation context, so the agent must infer usage.

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