GET /licenses/{id}

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what a missing id returns (404 vs empty), whether the response includes seats or custom fields, or anything about permissions. The bar is lower with annotations present, but here the description contributes zero behavioral context.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, so it does not waste the reader's time. However, the second clause '/licenses/:id' is a literal duplicate of the first, and the OpenAPI provenance note consumes roughly half the text without informing tool selection. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than discipline.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of saying what the call returns, and it says nothing — an agent cannot tell whether it gets a license object, seats, or a wrapped envelope. For a simple single-record GET the annotations cover risk, but the return shape and the not-found behavior remain undocumented.

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% and the single parameter is documented in-schema as 'The id (not name) of the license,' which is genuinely useful. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own; the '/licenses/{id}' path echo conveys nothing the schema does not. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 merely restates the tool name and URL path ('GET /licenses/{id}: /licenses/:id'), adding a provenance note about OpenAPI generation. An agent can infer it retrieves a license by id, but only from the HTTP verb and path, not from any stated purpose. It does nothing to distinguish this from the many near-identical siblings such as snipeit_gen_licensesid_1, _2, _3 or snipeit_list_licenses.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. Given the sibling set contains snipeit_list_licenses and three other tools with essentially the same 'licensesid' name, the absence of routing information is a real cost. The verb 'GET' implicitly signals a read of a single record, which is the only weak usage cue.

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