netlicensing_list_licensees

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool lists licensees non-destructively but omits details on pagination, error behavior, or output format. The presence of an output schema mitigates the lack of return value description.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence for purpose and two lines for parameters. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, with no redundant text.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameters for a list operation. It lacks mention of pagination or result format, but the output schema likely fills that gap. Overall adequate for a straightforward list tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the parameter descriptions add value: 'product_number' is explained as 'Product to list customers for' and 'filter' as 'Optional server-side filter expression' with an example. This clarifies their purpose beyond the schema's basic type and title.

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 clearly states the tool lists all customers (licensees) for a product. The verb 'list' and resource 'licensees' are specific, distinguishing it from other list tools like netlicensing_list_licenses or netlicensing_list_products.

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 usage by requiring a product_number and offering an optional filter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The context of siblings indicates it is the only licensee listing tool, so no direct alternative exists.

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