Get User License Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the nuance 'currently assigned,' which implies the result reflects the current state. However, it does not disclose pagination, sorting, or any other behavioral details beyond what annotations already provide.

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, front-loaded with the verb and object, with no wasted words. It is concise and structurally efficient.

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 tool's simplicity—one parameter, good annotations, no output schema—the description adequately communicates the core purpose and what the result will be (a list of licenses). Minor gaps include the lack of parameter format and no mention of response structure, but these do not undermine the overall completeness for this straightforward read-only operation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%—the parameter 'user' has only a type and minLength. The description does not add meaningful semantics: it says 'a user' but does not specify whether this is an ID, email, or UPN, nor any format constraints. The parameter name itself is self-explanatory, so the description adds minimal value.

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 'List the licenses currently assigned to a user' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('licenses') with clear scope ('to a user'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like assign_license and remove_license, and from list_subscribed_skus which lists available SKUs rather than user-assigned licenses.

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 intended use is implied: to fetch a user's current licenses. However, no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. It is not misleading, but it lacks the explicitness of a higher score.

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