get_tenant_licenses

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the return content: licensed SKUs with unit counts and active service plans. It does not mention pagination or response format, but for a zero-parameter read-only listing that is a minor gap.

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, well-structured sentence in Portuguese that front-loads the action, names the resource, and enumerates the key output fields. Every part of the sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it tells the agent what the tool lists and which license-related fields are returned. It could be slightly more explicit about scope or response shape, but the absence of parameters and the simple read-only nature keep this from being a significant gap.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 ('Lista') and resource ('SKUs licenciados do tenant'), and further details the exact output dimensions: enabled, consumed, and idle units plus active service plans. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_license_posture or get_pim_state_summary, which target different license/posture concepts.

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 its use case by naming the data it returns, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or related tools. An agent must infer usage from context.

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