List licenses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are paginated, which annotations do not say, but it omits the interaction between the 'all' auto-pagination mode and limit/offset, and says nothing about the cap or truncation behavior that the schema hints at.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the HTTP path and the list nature. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema and only 20% schema documentation, the description does far too little: it never explains the filters, the auto-paginate 'all' mode, or what the returned list contains. An agent could call it, but would be guessing on most parameters.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate for eight essentially undocumented filter parameters (company_id, maintained, category_id, supplier_id, depreciation_id, manufacturer_id, offset, search). 'Supports search and common filters' names a capability without explaining any filter's semantics or how the pagination parameters combine.

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 (GET/list) and resource (licenses) plus a key scope trait (paginated). It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as snipeit_get_user_licenses or snipeit_get_license_seats, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. 'Supports search and common filters' hints at capability but does not tell an agent which situations select this tool over snipeit_get_user_licenses or snipeit_list_accessories.

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