get_license_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: it lists the tool ledger, notes that all tools are currently free, and explicitly states it makes no external API call. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent of side-effect-free behavior.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence delivers the primary action, the second adds the key facts (free, ledger, no API call). No wasted words.

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 parameterless tool with rich annotations covering safety, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns conceptually (tool ledger and key status), and that it makes no external call. No output schema exists, but the description's statement of what is reported suffices.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific information because none exists. It appropriately remains silent on parameters.

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 ('Report') and resource ('this server's licensing state'), and clarifies what it lists (tool ledger, key detection). Distinguishes itself from sibling get_* tools by explicitly noting it makes no Guesty API call, so an agent can tell it apart.

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 this tool (when checking licensing state) and sets expectations that it's not a data-retrieval tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. For a unique tool with no direct sibling, the implicit guidance is acceptable but not explicit.

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