sophos_get_firewall_licenses

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

With no annotations, the description must convey all behavioral traits. It correctly indicates a read operation (get) and the mutual exclusivity of IDs. However, it lacks details on pagination behavior, sorting, and response format, which are not covered by annotations. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to clarity, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

Given 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context (mutual exclusivity of IDs). Pagination and sorting are documented in the schema, so their omission from the description is acceptable. The description is largely complete for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema covers all 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the mutual exclusivity of tenant_id and partner_id, which is not directly clear from the schema. It does not elaborate on pagination or sorting, but those are already described in the schema. The added context elevates the score.

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 clearly states the tool gets firewalls and their licenses for a Sophos Central tenant or partner. It uses a specific verb and resource, and while it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like sophos_get_licenses or sophos_list_firewalls, the combination of 'firewalls' and 'licenses' in the resource makes the purpose distinct.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use tenant_id vs partner_id and that they are mutually exclusive. However, it does not explicitly advise when to use this tool over sibling tools such as sophos_get_licenses or sophos_list_firewalls, limiting the usage guidance.

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