cipp_list_licenses

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, which is correct, but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., auth requirements, pagination, rate limits) are disclosed. It is adequate but minimal.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It states the purpose efficiently, though it could include slightly more detail without harming conciseness.

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's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it does not explain the return format or what 'usage' means, leaving some ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter tenantFilter, and its description already explains the scope. The tool description adds no extra meaning or context for the parameter, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'license assignments and usage for a tenant', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It sufficiently distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cipp_list_users or cipp_list_csp_licenses.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cipp_list_csp_licenses) or prerequisites. The description lacks any context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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