request_license

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool triggers an email and returns purchase info. It doesn't cover potential side effects, but for a non-destructive request tool, the disclosure is sufficient.

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 three sentences, each adding unique information: purpose, usage scenario, and outcome. It is slightly verbose but all content is relevant and front-loaded.

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?

Given simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers all key aspects: purpose, trigger conditions, pricing, and expected result (purchase link). It lacks mention of prerequisites like authentication, but the tool is likely accessible.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the email parameter (send purchase link) and that name is optional, while the schema provides similar but more concise descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Get a GHL Command license.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and differs from siblings like `setup_ghl_mcp` which handle license validation, not acquisition.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'if you installed from npm but don't have a license yet (or setup_ghl_mcp says your license is missing/invalid).' It also provides context—license costs, features, and what happens after submission.

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