List licensed software

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

Annotations already declare read-only behavior, and the description adds meaningful context by specifying returned metrics (copies counts, compliance status, network installation counts) and the licensed-software scope. It does not contradict annotations, though it omits details like pagination behavior beyond schema.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and packs essential output fields into a concise structure. No filler or redundant wording is present.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of the primary data returned: copies, compliance states, and network counts. It lacks explicit mention of default ordering or how it relates to sibling inventory queries, but the core context is sufficiently covered.

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 all four parameters are already documented with types, defaults, and enum labels. The description adds no new parameter-specific meanings; the compliance status mentions mirror the schema's enum 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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and clearly defines the resource: software that has license records. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like inventory_licenses_list and inventory_software_list by emphasizing license-linked software and compliance-related computed fields.

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 use when license compliance information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inventory_licenses_list or inventory_software_list. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

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