get_licenses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds '[READ-ONLY]' which merely repeats the annotation, and 'Executes: request license info' hints at an underlying command but adds no meaningful behavioral context such as response format or scope of features covered.

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 description is short and front-loaded with the READ-ONLY tag, and the core purpose is stated in the first sentence. The second sentence, 'Executes: request license info,' adds marginal value and is somewhat redundant with 'retrieves,' but overall there is no wasted material.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional, fully documented parameter, the description is adequate. It does not describe the return structure, but there is no output schema and the operation is a straightforward status query, so the missing detail is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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%, so the schema fully documents the one optional 'firewall' parameter. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('retrieves') and resource ('license status and expiration dates for all features'), making the tool's function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_license_usage, so an agent may have to inspect further to differentiate them.

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 description implies when to use the tool—whenever license status or expiration dates are needed—but provides no explicit context about when to prefer it over get_license_usage or get_wildfire_status. There are no stated exclusions or alternative routing, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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