license_status_live

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two real traits: it performs a server round-trip and it is revocation-aware. It omits other behaviorally important facts such as auth requirements, latency/cost of the server hit, failure behavior when the server is unreachable, and whether results are cached.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the distinguishing qualifier arrives immediately after the core claim. It could be slightly tighter, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a high level (tier, status, expiry) and notes the live/revocation-aware behavior. It is still thin on the optional license_key parameter and on operational behavior (auth, server unavailability), which matter for a server-hitting call.

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 coverage is 0% and there is one parameter, license_key, which the description never mentions. The phrase 'current Kiln caller' hints that identity may come from the session, but the description does not say what passing license_key does versus omitting it, so the only parameter's semantics are left unaddressed in both schema and description.

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 a specific verb-and-resource pair (return tier/status/expiry for the current Kiln caller) and adds a distinguishing qualifier, 'live ... by hitting the server (revocation-aware)'. That implicitly separates it from the sibling license_status, but it never names that sibling or states the contrast explicitly, so an agent must infer it.

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 only implied: the words 'live' and 'revocation-aware' suggest calling this when a freshly checked, revocation-aware answer is needed rather than a cached one. It does not say when to prefer it over license_status or check_my_tier, nor when not to call it (for example, on every turn vs only on suspicion of revocation).

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