list_licenses

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly signals a read operation ('List') and discloses the returned fields: license keys, customer emails, activation status, and expiration dates. It does not mention pagination or auth, but nothing suggests mutation and the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the operation and filtering, the second states what is returned. The most important information is 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields. All three optional parameters are covered by the schema. It omits pagination and error behavior, but for a simple list-with-filters tool the core context needed to call it correctly is present.

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%, so the schema already documents productId, activeOnly, and productName. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond noting optional product filtering, which is already encoded in the schema.

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 ('List'), resource ('licenses'), and scope ('all'), then names the returned fields. The plural scope and optional product filter naturally distinguish this from get_license (single license) and generate_license (creation), even though siblings are not named.

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 implies a bulk-listing use case with optional product filtering, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_license or list_products. An agent must infer the routing from names and context rather than from clear guidance.

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