get_license_posture

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that the tool cross-references license data with actual usage and explicitly distinguishes three license states that lead to different actions.

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 front-loaded with the core operation, followed by concrete use-case bullets and a meaningful distinction about output categories. Every sentence adds value and the structure makes the tool easy to understand quickly.

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 parameterless tool, the description fully explains what the tool does, why an agent would call it, and what kind of distinctions the output provides. With no output schema, this level of context is sufficient for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. Baseline 4 applies because no parameter semantics are needed.

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 ('Cruza') and resource ('licenças assinadas do tenant' com 'uso real dos recursos de segurança'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_tenant_licenses or get_pim_state_summary. Example questions further clarify the intent.

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 gives explicit example questions that indicate when to use the tool, such as checking for unused licenses or PIM usage. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough.

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