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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The description adds useful scope information about what the answer will cover (permissions, prohibitions, refund rule), but says nothing about the form of the response or whether terms are versioned/dated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical list of use contexts is dense but informative. It could be trimmed slightly, but every clause adds scope information.

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 parameterless, read-only, closed-world lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the caller needs to decide to invoke it and what topics the answer addresses. Only the return shape is unspecified, which is a minor gap for a simple static-terms 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema's additionalProperties=false is consistent with a parameterless lookup.

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 names the resource (FGD licence terms) and enumerates its content scope: allowed uses across personal, commercial, web, apps, logos, merchandise, plus disallowed uses and the refund rule. That clearly separates it from get_item, mockup_link, and search_catalog, though the verb is only implied by the name rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied: consult this when you need to know whether a font/asset use is permitted or how refunds work. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_item or search_catalog, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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