Computers under a software metering rule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is consistent with those. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying the exact per-computer usage data returned (total run time, run count, last used) and references the source of swMeRuleId, providing value beyond the annotations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and includes the key output fields without unnecessary 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?

The description provides enough context for a read-only listing tool: it identifies the required input, how to get it, and what output to expect. While pagination and filters are not mentioned in the description, they are well-documented in the schema, and the output fields are highlighted. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the swMeRuleId source from the schema but does not add additional semantic meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 retrieves computers for a specific software metering rule and lists the per-computer usage metrics, distinguishing it from other inventory tools by referencing the metering rule context.

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 gives clear context by specifying that the tool is for a specific software metering rule and references how to obtain the rule ID from another tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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