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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new context: '[Public, no account needed]' tells the agent no auth is required. It also signals the output form ('in plain English'), though it does not say whether the response is prose or a per-type list.

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 tight sentences: the first defines the resource and its values, the second gives usage timing, and the access note is bracketed at the end. Nothing is redundant and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema explainer with rich annotations, the description covers what it does, when to call it, and that it requires no account. The only missing piece is routing guidance away from sibling lookup tools, which is minor at this complexity level.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed to invoke it.

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 (explain) and resource (WEIR AI's license types), and enumerates the four values it covers: open, earn, protect, blocked. This separates it from data-returning siblings like get_license or list_licenses, which retrieve licenses rather than explain the taxonomy.

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions: before explaining catalog results, or when the user asks what a type allows. It does not name a contrasting sibling (e.g., 'use get_license to look up one specific license'), so the exclusion side is left implicit.

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