get_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 discloses only the basic action (getting details) and offers no additional behavioral context like error handling, authentication requirements, or return format. There is no mention of what happens if the ID does not exist, which is a gap.

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 is direct and free of unnecessary detail. It conveys the essential action and argument efficiently, with no waste.

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?

With no output schema and a one-parameter tool, the description is still incomplete. It does not specify what the 'details' encompass, nor does it clarify response structure or error behavior. Given that sibling tools include list_licenses and other license operations, more context would help select and invoke the tool effectively.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'IDを指定して' (specifying an ID), but does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema's 'license_id' integer field. It does not explain that the ID is the unique license identifier, nor does it provide constraints or examples.

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 states 'IDを指定してライセンスの詳細を取得します' which clearly identifies a specific verb ('get') and resource ('license details') with a required parameter (ID). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like list_licenses and get_asset by indicating it retrieves one license.

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?

Usage is implied by the context of sibling tools (e.g., list_licenses for listing, get_license for single retrieval), but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusionary guidance. It lacks explicit context such as 'use when you have a license ID'.

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