list_license_seats

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context: it returns all seats in a specific order and supports an available-only filter. It does not mention return format, pagination, or any side effects, but as a read operation, the risk is low.

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 extremely concise, two sentences, with the primary action and key filter stated front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 list tool with only two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main functionality, ordering, and filtering. It could mention additional details like whether assigned seats are included, but overall it is fairly complete for its complexity.

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 description explicitly explains the available_only parameter (filter to empty seats) and implies the license_id through the concept of 'license'. However, license_id itself is not elaborated beyond the schema, and schema coverage is 0%, so partial compensation only.

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 (retrieves), the resource (license seats), and the ordering (by seat number). It also mentions an optional filter for available seats, distinguishing it from related assignment tools.

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 this is for reading license seats, especially given the sibling tools (assign/unassign). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_license or list_licenses.

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