check_user_cep_license

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys the read-only nature implicitly via 'checks', but does not disclose return shape, error behavior, permissions, or edge cases (e.g., user not found). The presence of an output schema mitigates some ambiguity, but behavioral details beyond the core action are missing.

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?

Two concise sentences with the core action front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence provides practical usage context without fluff. Every word 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential 'what' and 'when to use'. It does not explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools (e.g., check_cep_subscription), but the wording 'specific user' makes the distinction clear enough. Slight gap in noting exclusions or prerequisites, but overall sufficient for this complexity level.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'userId' described as 'The user's primary email address or unique ID.' The description adds no new meaning beyond saying 'by email or unique ID', which duplicates the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter semantics fully.

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 action ('Checks if a specific user has a Chrome Enterprise Premium (CEP) license assigned') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_cep_subscription by specifying 'specific user' and 'individual user', making the scope unambiguous.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: 'verify if an individual user (by email or unique ID) is licensed for CEP features.' It implies but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions (e.g., not for subscription-level checks), so it lacks full 'when-not' guidance but provides a solid contextual cue.

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