get_tenant_licenses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds the scope of returned data but nothing about freshness/caching, tenant scoping behavior implied by openWorldHint, or what 'ociosas' means operationally. Minimal added value beyond annotations.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No wasted words, though it is somewhat under-elaborated given the absence of usage guidance.

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 operation is simple (a read-only, no-param listing) and annotations cover its safety profile, so little is required. However, no output schema exists, so the description stands in for the return shape and only partially covers it (unit counts and service plans), and it omits any guidance distinguishing it from get_license_posture.

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 takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless tenant-wide listing, but there is nothing more to document.

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?

States a specific verb (Lista) and resource (SKUs licenciados do tenant) with the fields returned (habilitadas, consumidas, ociosas, planos de serviço). It is clearly distinct from the sibling get_license_posture only implicitly — it does not name it or explain the difference, so it falls short of the sibling-differentiation bar of 5.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given. The description does not reference the clearly related sibling get_license_posture, so the agent must guess which license tool to call. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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