license_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns one row per server, includes a single checkout URL, and reports errors for servers that failed to start. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'get status' statement. It doesn't mention whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, but the description's wording ('Report') strongly implies a read operation.

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, no filler. The core output is front-loaded ('licence tier of every server'), followed by the unique checkout URL detail and the error-reporting behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 parameterless status tool with no output schema, the description covers the key output elements: per-server rows, the upgrade URL, and error reporting. It doesn't specify the exact format of the license tier values or the response structure, but given the tool's simplicity and zero parameters, the description is largely complete. A minor gap is not stating whether the checkout URL is always present or only when upgrades are available.

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 the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description compensates by explaining what the output contains (per-server license tier, checkout URL, error messages), which is the relevant semantic content for a parameterless tool. Baseline 4 for 0 params is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('licence tier of every server connected to this bundle'), and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like license_activate by focusing on status reporting rather than activation. It also adds the unique detail of a single checkout URL and error reporting for failed servers.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when you need a status overview of all servers' license tiers and the upgrade URL. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools (license_activate) makes the use case clear enough. A brief 'use this instead of license_activate for status' would push it to 5.

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