avanan_list_licenses

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool lists licenses and returns specific fields, but doesn't mention any authorization needs, rate limits, or whether the result is paginated. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 only 15 words, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a practical usage hint without any fluff. 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what is listed and the fields, and connects to the sibling tool for assignment. A small gap is not mentioning potential scope or filtering, but 'all' implies completeness.

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 schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the output fields, which is helpful despite no parameters.

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 explicitly states the tool lists all available license packages and specifies the fields returned (id, codeName, displayName). It distinguishes from sibling tools like avanan_assign_license and avanan_list_tenants by focusing on license packages.

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 tells when to use the tool (to get license packages) and provides a specific use case: using the codeName for license assignment. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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