qui_get_licensed_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, lowering the bar. The description adds the endpoint structure and argument-passing conventions but no additional behavioral details (e.g., auth needs, rate limits, response shape). It is neither contradictory nor particularly enriching.

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 single sentence that leads with the endpoint and immediately follows with how to structure arguments. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the simple GET nature, the readOnlyHint, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details. However, it omits the functional purpose (what 'licensed status' means) and any differentiation from sibling license-related tools, making it only minimally complete.

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 is completely open (additionalProperties: true) with zero descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains the general structure for path variables, query parameters, and body, which is helpful. However, it does not list specific parameter names or expected values for this endpoint, leaving the agent to infer them.

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 calls the GET /license/licensed endpoint, which is a specific verb+resource. The tool name 'qui_get_licensed_status' reinforces that it retrieves licensed status. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the exact endpoint path, though it does not explicitly describe the returned status.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like qui_validate_license or qui_list_licenses. It only explains how to pass arguments, not the appropriate use case or prerequisites.

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