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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description's 'Read-only' merely restates that. What it does add beyond annotations is the accepted identifier universe (note ID, fact ID, slug, old slug), which is useful context; it says nothing about output shape or what happens with an unknown ID.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the alias relationship comes first, then the payload. The trailing 'Read-only' is redundant with the annotation but costs only three words.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (license, source, attribution) and what identifiers are accepted. Missing only edge-case behavior for invalid IDs, which is minor at this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it does: the single 'id' accepts a note ID, fact ID, slug, or old slug. That is genuinely additive over the bare string schema, with only the maxLength/format nuance left to the schema.

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 canonical sibling it aliases (license_of) and states the resource returned: license, original source, and attribution line for a note or fact. That is specific enough to distinguish it from get_fact, cite, or read_note, though the action verb is only implied by the noun phrase.

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 says 'Alias of license_of', which implicitly tells the agent either name works, but it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over license_of, cite, or get_fact, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. Usage is inferable rather than explained.

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