get_license_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the default return scope, what all=true expands to, and the notable side effect that an unlicensed FortiGate-VM reports vm.status=vm_invalid and refuses most other API calls with 401. It does not cover auth requirements or pagination, but the behavioral disclosure is substantive.

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?

Three dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The default-scope behavior and the failure mode are each stated once and earn their place, though the 401 note is a minor tangent to the tool's core purpose.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does most of the heavy lifting: it names the returned sections (VM license, FortiCare, FortiGuard) and a key return field (vm.status=vm_invalid). This is nearly complete for a simple two-parameter read tool, though it omits the full response shape.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's statement about default vs all=true return scope slightly enriches the meaning of `all`, but adds little beyond the schema text ('Return every entitlement (default false)').

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+resource: retrieving license and FortiGuard contract status. It is clearly distinct from the sibling get_license_limits (status vs limits), though it does not name the sibling explicitly. The purpose is unambiguous without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context on when to set all=true ('set all=true for every entitlement') versus the default subset, and explains a diagnostic use case (unlicensed VM refusing calls with 401). It lacks an explicit routing statement to alternatives like get_license_limits, but the usage context is strong.

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