IvedaAI: License

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

The description discloses the response envelope ('status', 'truncated'/'timedOut') and file upload format, which is useful context. However, with annotations all false, the description carries full burden and does not mention authentication, side effects beyond 'activate', or reversibility. This is moderate transparency.

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 a well-structured list of endpoints with consistent formatting, no fluff, and front-loaded general info. Despite being longer, every line provides concrete operational detail, making it efficient for a multi-operation 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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain return values. It covers the general response envelope but does not describe the specific data returned by each operation (e.g., what fields 'Get License' returns). The operation names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the gap in response detail limits completeness for a complex tool with six endpoints.

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 description adds significant parameter meaning beyond the generic schema by listing specific query parameters for each endpoint (e.g., 'ainvrIds?:integer', 'activationType?:string enum:MANUAL|ONLINE'). This is essential because the schema's query property is a generic additionalProperties object.

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 covers 'License operations' and enumerates specific endpoints with verbs like 'Get License' and 'Activate license'. While it doesn't use a single verb+resource construction, the list of operations provides clear scope. The name 'ivedaai_license' distinguishes it from sibling 'license_plate' tools.

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 domain (licenses) and endpoint list but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description does not mention alternative tools for similar tasks.

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