list_license_positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety and repeatability profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful context that the payload is per-product owned-vs-used rights, but says nothing about default page size, pagination, or result limits — behavior the agent must discover.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and the record shape second, with zero filler. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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 simple, fully-annotated, read-only list tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and payload semantics adequately. Only pagination/return-size expectations are unaddressed, which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 all four parameters (limit, product, publisher, over_licensed_only) are documented in the schema, and the baseline is 3. The description's 'owned vs. used rights' phrasing lightly contextualizes over_licensed_only ('unused rights') but adds no filtering syntax or format detail.

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 ('List SAM Pro effective license position (ELP) records') and clarifies what a record contains ('owned vs. used rights per product'). It is clearly distinct from mutation siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with closely related read tools like get_license_position_summary or get_license_compliance.

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 by the resource name — an agent can infer 'use this to enumerate ELP records', but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many license/compliance siblings. No prerequisites or scope caveats are given.

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