list_license_tiers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about whether this is a read-only lookup, whether results are cached/filtered, or what the returned tiers contain. 'List' weakly implies a non-destructive read, but the description discloses essentially no behavioral traits.

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 tight sentence with the trigger condition front-loaded and no filler. It is sized appropriately for a parameterless lookup tool.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of information, yet it never indicates what is returned (tier names, prices, limits) or how the result should be used downstream. The calling surface is trivially complete, but the response semantics are missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the schema explicitly states 'no parameters'. Baseline 4 applies per the rubric for a 0-parameter tool.

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 implies the resource (license tiers/pricing) but never states a verb+object like 'lists available license tiers and their costs'. It is framed as a usage trigger rather than a statement of what the tool returns, so an agent must infer the purpose from the name. It is not a tautology, but it lacks a concrete purpose statement.

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?

It gives a trigger condition ('when the user asks what licenses cost or which license fits their project'), which is real usage guidance. However, it never distinguishes this from the sibling quote_license, which plausibly also answers cost questions, and names no alternatives or exclusions. Usage is implied and partially ambiguous rather than explicit.

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