list_licenses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation and the fields returned, which is transparent for a simple list tool. However, it does not disclose any potential pagination, ordering, or availability behavior, though none may be expected for this tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It names the action, resource, and specific output fields, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 no-parameter list operation with an output schema present, the description covers what an agent needs to know: what is listed and what information is returned. It is slightly light on behavioral context, but nothing critical is missing for such a simple tool.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description still provides value by indicating what the returned data will contain, which aligns with the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('Horizon licenses'), and the exact fields of interest (status, mode, expiry). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling list tools like list_connection_servers or list_virtual_centers, which target different resources.

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 the tool is used when someone needs license information, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. For a no-parameter list-all tool, the implied context is clear enough, yet there is no explicit routing guidance.

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