List software metering rules

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 covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing the exact data returned (run time, run count, installation count) and that it covers 'all software metering rules' across the network. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional useful detail beyond them.

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. The first front-loads the main purpose and output, the second provides relevant cross-tool guidance. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description properly explains what is returned (usage metrics and metadata). It also clarifies the aggregate scope ('across the network') and directs users to the per-computer alternative. Combined with complete schema coverage and strong annotations, the description is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% with all three parameters (raw, page, pageLimit) fully described in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden of parameter semantics.

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's function: 'Retrieves all software metering rules with usage metrics across the network' and specifies the exact metrics returned (total run time, run count, discovered installation count, rule metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inventory_computers_with_metering by focusing on aggregate summary data.

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 explicitly provides an alternative tool: 'Use app_definition_id with inventory_computers_with_metering to see per-computer usage.' This tells the agent when to use a different tool, thereby implying when this tool is appropriate (for aggregate/network-level summaries). It gives clear context and a named alternative.

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