license_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses key behavioral traits: no authentication needed, return fields (tier, validity, expiration, source, session_state, action_required), and specific actions for a lapsed OAuth session. It lacks only explicit mention of idempotency or side effects, which are minimal for a read operation.

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 succinct at 8 sentences, front-loading the main purpose. It efficiently conveys necessary details without redundancy. Slight room for improvement: the second paragraph could be more concise, but overall well-structured.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what is needed: what data is returned (tier, validity, expiration, source, session_state, action_required), authentication requirements, and how to handle specific cases. It is complete enough for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 with 100% coverage (empty schema). According to guidelines, 0 parameters earn a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed, but it enriches understanding by explaining the output structure, which indirectly aids correct invocation.

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 retrieves license tier, validity, and details. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('license status'), making its purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on license information, which is unique among the many 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 mentions that no authentication is required, which is a useful usage hint. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use check_my_tier or other license-related tools). The context is implied but not explicit.

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