beta_license_agreements__list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the endpoint URL, such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or response structure. The added value over annotations is minimal.

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, consisting of one sentence plus the endpoint. It front-loads the purpose efficiently. However, it is too brief to be fully informative; a second sentence about typical use or output format would improve it without adding much length.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, how to paginate using 'next_url', or what relationship inclusion ('include') does. The description also fails to differentiate this list from the similar 'apps__beta_license_agreement__get' endpoint.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema descriptions are detailed (e.g., filter_app specifies valid ID format). The tool description does not add any parameter explanations beyond what is already in the schema. With high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description neither improves nor detracts.

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 'List beta license agreements' with a verb and resource. It distinguishes from similar tools like 'beta_license_agreements__get' (single item retrieval) and 'beta_license_agreements__update' (modification) through the use of 'list'. However, it does not elaborate on what a beta license agreement is or how it differs from related list endpoints like 'apps__beta_license_agreement__get'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'beta_license_agreements__get' for a single record, 'apps__beta_license_agreement__get' for a specific app's agreement, or other list tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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