licenses_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so restating 'read-only' adds nothing. However, 'Product keys appear only when permissions allow' is a genuine behavioral disclosure about permission-gated field redaction that annotations cannot express, and it is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before reporting results.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verbs and resource, then the field inventory, then the permission caveat. No filler or repetition; it could be slightly tighter but nothing is wasted.

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-value documentation is unnecessary. Still, a 12-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no explanation of action_name, query, or pagination leaves real gaps the description does not close, making this only minimally viable.

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 12 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It lists domain concepts (category, manufacturer, supplier, company, maintenance) that map loosely to some *_id params, but omits sort/limit/order/query/offset/action_name/license_id entirely and never explains the action_name mode switch or pagination defaults.

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 specific verbs and resource ('List, search, or retrieve software licences') and enumerates the domain fields it operates on, so the agent knows exactly what domain this covers. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like licenses_write, license_seats, or assets_search, which keeps it short of a 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus license_seats or the write counterpart, and no indication of what the 'action_name' parameter (default 'list') actually selects between the advertised list/search/retrieve modes. The agent must guess how to trigger search vs retrieval.

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