asset_licenses

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuine non-structured context: product keys are returned only when both Snipe-IT and the caller's permissions expose them. The trailing 'This tool is read-only' sentence partly restates readOnlyHint=true, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. The final read-only sentence is largely redundant with the annotations, so it does not fully earn its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, and the permission caveat is a useful addition. However, for a zero-required-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description never clarifies identifier selection rules or pagination, leaving a real 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It mentions 'exact asset tag or serial', which touches two parameters, but asset_id, limit, and offset are never explained, nor is it stated that at least one identifier must be supplied. Compensation is partial at best.

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 and resource ('Read software licences') scoped to 'one asset', which is clearer than a bare resource name. It does not explicitly contrast with licenses_search, licenses_write, or license_seats, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 'when needed' phrasing around asset tag/serial resolution hints at how to identify the target asset, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g. licenses_search for licenses not tied to an asset). An agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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