pro_license_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavior: it states it is non-destructive, free to call, and explains each returned field in detail, including the role of the 'message' for Claude to relay.

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: one sentence for purpose, then a bulleted list for returns. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (0 params), and the description fully explains what it does, when to call it, and what the output contains. No gaps remain given the low complexity and presence of output schema (documented in description).

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to add meaning beyond the schema. The baseline for 0 params is 4, but the description excels by also detailing the output semantics, which is a bonus.

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 it inspects the Pro-tier license state and lists the exact return fields. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which are focused on insurance reserving methods, leaving no ambiguity.

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?

It indicates the tool is 'free to call regardless of license state,' which advises that it is safe to use anytime. No explicit when-not-to-use is needed due to the tool's simple nature and distinct purpose from siblings.

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