List licenses of a software

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 behavioral context by listing the curated default fields (license name, edition, copies, mapped computer count, purchase/expiry dates, purchase details) and noting that raw:true reveals license key and file-path fields. This goes 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence efficiently introduces the raw option without extra fluff. Every clause adds value.

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 4 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, key output fields, and the raw option. Combined with schema and annotations, this is sufficient. Pagination or error behavior are not described but are peripheral for this tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying what the 'curated default field set' includes and what raw=true provides, which is not fully captured in the schema's generic 'full, unprojected record' for the raw parameter.

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' with a concrete resource 'licenses' and clear scope 'for a specific software (by software_id)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inventory_software_list or inventory_license_software_list, which focus on software rather than licenses.

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 usage by stating 'by software_id', and the schema for swId explicitly references 'from inventory_license_software_list' as the source. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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