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

Annotations only say it's not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive. The description adds substantive context annotations don't carry: it's free, it returns an exam, there's a 30-minute answer window, and a key is required. That is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the key facts (free, purpose, return, timing, auth). Information-dense but each clause carries content. The parenthetical list of example situations is slightly ornamental but illustrates the exam format.

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?

With a single required enum param, no output schema, and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, return shape, deadline, follow-up tool and auth. Little an agent needs is missing; only the exact exam payload format is left unspecified, which is acceptable without an output schema.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by defining what each enum level means (basic = simple errands, professional = a business, critical = a law firm/bank), adding real semantic value over the schema's terse 'the level your principal chose'.

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 resource (buyer's licence) and what starting it does: returns an exam of realistic situations. Distinguishes itself from siblings like licence_answer, get_licence and verify_licence. The framing is metaphoric ('prove you buy well') but a verb+resource is recoverable.

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?

Explains this must be done before buying 'for real', names the follow-up tool (licence_answer), and states prerequisites (needs your key; register_agent gives one). No explicit when-not-to-use case, so it stops short of 5.

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