license_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns one row per license with specific fields (including unlimited flag condition total==0), which provides behavioral context beyond 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 concise with two short paragraphs, front-loaded with '[READ]', and every sentence adds value: purpose, return format, usage context, and parameter explanation.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, return values, and parameter. It is fairly complete for a simple read tool, though it lacks mention of error handling or prerequisites. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden, but the description adds useful detail.

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 single parameter 'target' has 0% schema description coverage, but the description fully compensates: it states it is optional, comes from config, and uses a default if omitted. This adds clear meaning beyond the schema.

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 it is a read operation for vCenter/ESXi license inventory with usage and expiry, and lists the returned fields. It clearly identifies the resource and action, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, several of which are also inventory reads.

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 gives a clear use case: 'catch over-allocation or an approaching license expiry.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives from the sibling tool list, leaving the agent to infer exclusion criteria.

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