get_licence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation through the verb 'Return' and lists the output fields, which implies no side effects. It does not explicitly state non-mutating behavior, but the wording makes it evident.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and purpose, followed by the key details. It contains no filler or redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 simple, parameterless read operation, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. The existence of an output schema means return format details are already captured elsewhere, so no additional explanation is required. The description is complete for an agent to use 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema already confirms no inputs, and the description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable. The baseline of 4 for zero parameters applies, as there is no information gap.

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: 'Return the current licence status' with specific details (tier, customer, expiry, validity). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which are model-editing or query operations unrelated to licensing.

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 what it returns, but does not explicitly mention when to use it or exclude alternatives. There is no guidance on prerequisites or context. However, given the unique purpose, the intended usage is clear without needing explicit comparisons.

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