panelica_license_get_v1_license_plan

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds the required license:read scope, the HTTP endpoint, and the expected response fields, which are not in annotations. 'Read-only' is redundant with the annotations but not contradictory.

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 main purpose sentence first followed by labeled endpoint, category, scope, and read-only lines. It loses half a point because 'Read-only.' repeats what annotations already convey.

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 zero-parameter, read-only GET, the description covers purpose, endpoint, auth scope, and key return fields. It does not explicitly clarify that this is the current account's plan versus a catalog of plans, a minor ambiguity given the plans_* sibling tools.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('license plan information') plus a concrete list of fields (slug, name, status, expiry), making the tool's core function clear. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like license_status or plans_*, which could overlap in an agent's view.

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?

Usage is implied by the described return content ('license plan information'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over panelica_license_get_v1_license_status or panelica_plans_get_v1_plans, nor any when-not/alternative routing.

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