Show license info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by specifying exactly what data is shown (license status, hardware ID, plan, expiration), which is not in the annotations. It does not mention any special permissions or output format, but for a zero-parameter read-only tool, this is adequate.

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 of nine words that directly states the tool's function. It covers all key details without extraneous information, achieving maximum efficiency and front-loading.

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 read-only tool with zero parameters and strong annotations, the description is complete enough. It lists the specific data points returned, compensating somewhat for the lack of an output schema. While it does not describe the output format (e.g., table layout), that is less critical for this straightforward status 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?

The input schema has no parameters, so there is nothing to document. According to the rubric, zero parameters receive a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to add parameter information because there are none to describe.

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 with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('current license status, hardware ID, plan and expiration'). This is distinct from sibling tools like hana_show_config or hana_show_env_vars, which address different information. The level of detail leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 through its content (license-related details), but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Unlike the TDQS example that names alternative search tool, there is no direct guidance, though the name and sibling list provide context. This is implied usage at best.

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