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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one behavioral detail beyond them: the result is delivered 'in one paragraph', giving a hint about output shape. It says nothing about caching, freshness, or whether terms vary per design beyond the blanket statement.

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 zero filler. The scope qualifier ('every design') is placed immediately, and nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 trivial zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it returns (a single paragraph of licence terms covering all designs), which is the essential missing piece. Only minor detail is absent, such as whether terms are uniform or per-design.

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, which sets the baseline at 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because none exists, and the empty schema is fully self-explanatory.

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?

States a specific resource (licence terms) and its scope (every design on InfySVG), which is clearly distinct from get_design, list_categories, and search_designs. It's clear but doesn't explicitly name a sibling it differs from, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only implied – an agent can infer you call this when you need licensing information, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or reference to alternatives. For a zero-parameter singleton tool this is tolerable but still thin.

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