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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that the spdx_ids path uses a static table with no network call, the package path resolves from deps.dev with a max of 10 concurrent requests, there is a 50-item cap, a 60/minute rate limit, no auth required, and the output includes conflicting pairs with recommended actions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and verdict, followed by implementation constraints, audience, and fallback instructions. Every sentence adds useful information, and the report_feedback sentence is standard but purposeful. No redundancy or filler.

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 an output schema present, return values are already specified. The description covers input modes, output verdict, conflicting pairs, recommended action, network behavior, concurrency limits, item limits, rate limits, auth, target audience, and a feedback fallback. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaningful context: packages use {name, ecosystem}, SPDX IDs bypass network calls, and there is a 50-item limit. It does not clarify whether both arrays can be supplied simultaneously, but this is a minor gap given the schema's optionality.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Audit') and resource ('licence compatibility of your entire dependency list'), and states the output verdict. It clearly distinguishes itself from single-package licence fetchers by emphasizing the entire dependency list and from policy-based audits by mentioning the static SPDX compatibility table.

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?

It identifies the intended audience and scenario: developers and compliance teams auditing open source licence risk before shipping. It also provides a fallback instruction to report_feedback when the tool doesn't serve the need. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over closely related siblings like security_audit_sbom_license_policy or security_fetch_licence_analysis.

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