panelica_license_get_v1_license_features_feature

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds beyond those: it reveals response behavior (404 if feature not found), the required OAuth scope, and explicitly says 'Read-only.' The only minor gap is not describing the enabled/disabled response payload 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?

Four short lines: action, 404 behavior, HTTP path, category/scope/read-only. No filler, front-loaded with the key purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a trivial one-parameter GET tool, and the description plus schema fully cover the input. The output schema is absent, but for a boolean feature check the meaning is fairly clear without it. Only the response format (e.g., enabled:true) is not spelled out, which is a minor gap.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with a description and examples ('email_support, waf_modsecurity'). The description repeats the feature-path pattern but adds no new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the only parameter.

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 ('check if'), a specific resource ('a specific license feature'), and the success/failure semantics: Returns 404 if feature not found. The sibling list includes panelica_license_get_v1_license_features (list features) and panelica_license_get_v1_license_status, so it clearly identifies this as the per-feature existence/enabled check.

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 gives the HTTP method and path (GET /v1/license/features/:feature) and required scopes (license:read), which clarifies how to invoke it. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling license endpoints or state when to choose this over panelica_license_get_v1_license_features, so there's no explicit exclusion guidance, but the operation is self-evident enough.

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