get_license_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the call touches the live device, whether it requires the device to be online, what happens on an unreachable device, or what the response contains beyond the general topic.

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 filler. It is efficient but arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise in a way that earns every word.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the topic but omits what the returned license status looks like (expiry dates, entitlement counts, per-VDOM breakdown) and any device-state prerequisites. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so both device_id and vdom are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning about scope (e.g., whether omitting vdom returns all VDOMs), so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Show") and a specific resource ("FortiGuard/FortiCare license and subscription status"), naming the two license families covered. It is unambiguous against siblings, none of which deal with licensing, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 call this versus alternatives, no preconditions (device must be registered/reachable), and no mention of whether it is per-device or per-VDOM. Only the verb "Show" weakly implies a read-only status lookup.

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