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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds account-visibility scoping ('only data visible to the linked Market Brew account'), which is useful context, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or return shape.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition followed by the visibility constraint. No filler.

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?

Adequate for a simple list tool with annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema. However, it leaves the sole required parameter entirely unexplained and gives no sense of result content or scoping by crew.

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 single parameter 'crew' has 0% schema description coverage and an anyOf string/number type, yet the description never mentions it or explains what a crew identifier is or how to obtain it. The description fails to compensate for the documented schema gap.

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 clear verb+resource ('list customer licenses'), matching the title. It is distinguishable from get_customer_license (singular detail fetch) and list_license_definitions, though it does not explicitly name those 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?

Provides a trigger condition ('when the user asks to list customer licenses') but no when-not guidance and no explicit alternatives such as get_customer_license for a single license. Usage is implied rather than fully scoped.

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