get_content_upload_scan_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the only behavioral disclosure. The 'Get' phrasing reasonably implies a read-only retrieval, and the resource is concrete, but the description does not mention response shape, permissions, or any caveats. This is acceptable but not rich.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler. The core action, resource, and scope are all front-loaded and every word contributes.

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 single-parameter read-only settings lookup with full schema coverage, the description is largely complete for selecting and invoking correctly. The main gap is that there is no output schema or description of what the response contains, but the nature of 'settings' makes this a minor omission.

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 schema fully describes the only parameter ('zone_id') with 100% coverage, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the required work and no compensation is needed.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('content upload scan (malware) settings'), and a clear scope ('for a zone'). It is sufficiently distinct from sibling settings tools by the named resource, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with a particular alternative.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need a zone's malware scan settings. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer, leaving the agent to infer the decision from the resource name.

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