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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the output shape ('in one paragraph') and implies a read-only operation by naming 'licence terms'. However, it does not explicitly address safety, side effects, or response format beyond the paragraph hint, leaving some assumptions to the agent.

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 extremely concise and every word contributes, with no filler. It is not phrased as an imperative sentence, but it is front-loaded with the key subject and scope.

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 covers the essential information: what is returned, for which designs, and in what format. It is slightly terse, but the low complexity of the tool means no significant context is missing.

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 zero parameters and the schema has 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. This is the baseline score for parameterless tools.

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 clearly identifies the resource (licence terms) and scope (every design on InfySVG), and the 'one paragraph' detail gives an output expectation. It lacks an explicit verb, but the tool name 'get_licence' and context make the action evident. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_design by its 'every design' scope.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_design or search_designs. It implies use when licence terms for all designs are needed, but no explicit when/when-not guidance or sibling differentiation is provided.

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