list_available_licenses

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and 'in the tenant' scopes the result set, but nothing is said about required permissions, whether the list is paginated or truncated, or whether the tenant-wide scope can fail for delegated-access callers.

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?

A single twelve-word sentence with the verb front-loaded and the tenant scope trailing; every word earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition states the resource and scope clearly. The only real gap is that return shape (SKU id, name, enabled/consumed counts) is unspecified and there is no output schema to fall back on, which matters slightly more here because downstream assign_license needs the id.

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, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The parenthetical 'SKUs' usefully clarifies the terminology the resource is named by, which is a small bonus above the zero-parameter baseline.

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 ('List all available licenses (SKUs)') plus the scope ('in the tenant'), which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling assign_license, which consumes these SKUs rather than enumerating them. It never names that sibling explicitly, but the read-vs-write distinction is clear from the verb.

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: an agent can infer this is the discovery step that supplies a SKU id to assign_license, but the description never says so, nor does it state any preconditions or when-not-to-use conditions. No alternative enumeration tool exists among the siblings, so the omission is mild rather than confusing.

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