Get user license quotas

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP method and body constraint but does not disclose response contents, authentication, or pagination behavior beyond the schema's note.

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 exceptionally concise: a clear one-line purpose, the endpoint, a body-field note, and a reference link. No filler or redundant wording.

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 simple read-only GET with no required parameters, this is adequate but leaves gaps: no description of the returned quota fields, no explicit note that it targets user quotas as opposed to group quotas, and no query parameter names. The reference link helps compensate.

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 describes the single 'query' object, pagination behavior, and free-form additional properties with 100% coverage. The description only adds 'Body fields: none,' which is minor extra value beyond the schema.

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 action ('Get user license quotas') and the exact REST endpoint ('GET /api/xm/1/people/license-quotas'). This precisely identifies the resource and differentiates it from siblings like xmatters_get_group_license_quotas.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the group license quota equivalent. The endpoint and 'Body fields: none' are implementation details, not usage context.

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