entra_get_license_usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by explaining the concept of unassigned seats and their savings value, as well as the required permission. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact and well-structured: it leads with the core purpose, adds a practical insight about unassigned seats, routes the agent to a sibling tool for a related case, and closes with the permission requirement. Every sentence earns its place; there is no 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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema present, the description covers the purpose, the usage context, the alternative tool, and the required permission. There is nothing meaningful missing for an agent to decide whether to invoke it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The schema is vacuously complete at 100% coverage, and the baseline for no-parameter tools is 4. No additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Show, per licence SKU, how many seats were purchased and how many are assigned.' It goes beyond a generic label and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming entra_find_stale_accounts as the tool for a different scenario, while the other siblings focus on users rather than license SKU seat counts.

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?

It clearly states when to use this tool: to see purchased vs assigned seats per SKU, highlighting unassigned seats as the cheapest saving. It also provides an explicit exclusion: for seats assigned to people who never use them, call entra_find_stale_accounts instead. Additionally, it specifies the required permission, Organization.Read.All.

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