ruddur_get_marketplace_license

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

The description adds a behavioral trait—the required authorization scopes—which is not covered by the annotations. Since annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, there is no contradiction. The addition is useful but does not detail return shape or other side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the purpose and a key requirement without any redundancy or filler.

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 read-only get operation with one required path parameter, the description covers purpose and required scopes. However, with no output schema, it does not clarify what comes back in the license details, and it lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over related marketplace tools.

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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters (body, query, pathParams) and confirms the required purchaseId. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already conveys, so a baseline score is appropriate.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('creator license details for a purchase'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like verify_entitlement, so it misses the top score.

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 only mentions required scopes ('Requires one of scope: marketplace.entitlements, marketplace.manage') but gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or situational context. This is minimal usage guidance.

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