get_license_limits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only query and adds genuinely useful domain context (the free eval license ceilings of 1 vCPU, 2 GB RAM, 3 interfaces/policies/routes), but it says nothing about required permissions, whether counters are live or cached, or what the response contains.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by actionable context about the eval limits. The second sentence is long but earns its place by explaining what counts against each limit; nothing is redundant filler.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable sense of what is returned ('lists what counts against each'), but it does not describe the shape of the output or how the limits are represented, leaving a gap that the absent output schema cannot fill.

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 single vdom parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning about vdom scoping or defaults beyond what the schema provides, making the 3 baseline correct.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('how much of the license's object limits is used') and enumerates the concrete limits tracked. It is clear on its own, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_license_status or get_resource_usage, which an agent may confuse it with.

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?

Usage is only implied through the phrase 'so you can plan before hitting one', which suggests checking headroom ahead of provisioning. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against get_license_status / get_resource_usage, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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