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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a single paragraph with terms applicable to every design, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only (though implied), any potential side effects, or how the paragraph is structured. It adds some value but remains thin for a no-annotation scenario.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key resource and scope. Every word is purposeful, with no waste or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is fairly complete. It tells the agent what it returns (licence terms) and that they apply globally. It could optionally mention that the terms are standard/static, but the current description gives enough context for correct invocation and expectation setting.

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 has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none. It adds nothing beyond the schema coverage (100% trivially), but that is acceptable given the absence of parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'licence terms' for 'every design on InfyPNG'. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_design (specific design), list_categories (categories), and search_designs (searching), so an agent can differentiate it without ambiguity.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use it: when the agent needs licence terms for designs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the context of siblings makes the choice obvious. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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