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

Annotations declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds concrete behavioral details: static bundle for top-50 licences, fallback to spdx.org API, risk levels assume proprietary/commercial use, rate limit 60/min, no auth required. No contradiction with annotations; description enriches understanding.

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?

Description is informative yet compact. Front-loads core functionality, then adds details. Includes feedback fallback which is useful but slightly lengthens text. No redundant or empty sentences. Good structure for quick scanning.

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?

Tool has one required parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema (implied). Description covers all behavioral aspects: source types, fallback, audience, rate limits, auth. No gaps for a simple lookup tool.

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?

Only one parameter (spdx_id) with schema coverage 100%. Schema description already defines it as 'SPDX licence identifier e.g. MIT, Apache-2.0, GPL-3.0. Required.' Tool description repeats examples but adds no new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Describes exactly what the tool does: explains any software licence, returns obligations, permissions, limitations, risk level, and OSI/FSF status. Specifies input (SPDX identifier). Clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on comprehensive licence analysis rather than just fetching text or checking compatibility.

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?

States target users (security engineers, developers) and context (before including a dependency). Mentions fallback behavior and rate limit. Includes explicit guidance to call report_feedback with specific arguments if tool fails to serve the user's need. Lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools for when not to use this tool, but the purpose is clear enough.

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