get_fmg_license

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (status/license/message keys) and gives a working example, which is useful context for a zero-parameter call. It says nothing about authentication requirements, permissions, or whether the call is cached or rate-limited, so it is only partially complete on behavior.

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 opening sentence and the scope disclaimer are front-loaded and earn their place, but the subsequent "Returns" docstring block and the `>>>` example are formatted for source-code readers rather than an agent, and the return keys are already captured by the output schema. Roughly a third of the text is redundant scaffolding.

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 a zero-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: purpose, scope boundary, and a usage example. The only gap is operational context (auth/permissions), which is not covered anywhere else either.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing to document and the schema is fully covered. The description correctly reflects this by showing a no-argument invocation in the example.

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 and resource ("Get the FortiManager license/contract status") and immediately disambiguates the scope: it returns the FortiManager's own contract details, not managed-device licensing. An agent can tell what it retrieves and what it does not without consulting any other field.

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 negative scope statement ("-- not managed-device licensing") gives a clear condition for when this tool is the wrong choice, which is genuinely useful in a catalog of 200+ device/policy tools. However, it names no alternative tool for the managed-device case, so the routing guidance stops short of explicit sibling differentiation.

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