list_user_licenses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the scope ('owned by the current authenticated user') but omits important details such as whether the operation is read-only, potential performance implications, pagination, or response structure.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

While the description is adequate for a simple list operation, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., fields included, whether it's paginated). Given the absence of an output schema and the presence of many sibling tools, slightly more context would improve completeness.

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 and is trivially 100% covered. The description adds meaning by specifying what the tool returns (licenses owned by the user), which is sufficient given the lack of parameters. Baseline 4 applies.

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 (list), the resource (licenses), and the scope (owned by current authenticated user). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'check_license_status' and 'validate_license' which imply more specific or single-record operations.

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 implies when to use the tool (to view all licenses of the current user) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative tool to choose for different scenarios, such as checking a specific license's status.

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