Computers under a software license

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the result includes license name and computer details, which is useful, but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination or filtering beyond what the schema already provides. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It includes the key input and output context without any redundant or filler words.

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's moderate complexity (6 params, 1 required), the schema fully documents all parameters, and annotations cover safety. The description outlines the purpose and return content (license name and computer details). It is sufficiently complete for the agent to understand the tool's role, though it could mention pagination/filtering, but those are already in schema.

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 all six parameters are documented in the schema. The description echoes licId's origin but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Retrieves the computers associated with a specific software license'), specifies the resource (computers), and identifies the key parameter (license_id from inventory_licenses_list). It also contrasts with sibling tools by focusing on license ID lookup, which distinguishes it from inventory_computers_by_software or inventory_computers_by_licensed_software.

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 clear context: it is used when you have a license_id from inventory_licenses_list and want the associated computers. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the reference to the prerequisite source is sufficient for this straightforward retrieval tool.

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