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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it largely succeeds: it explicitly says 'Read-only', states that unknown ids return an error field, and twice emphasizes that it never guesses a licence and will say when it cannot read one. It does not describe the exact successful response structure, but the safety and error behavior are well covered.

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 nearly two hundred words and repeats the no-guessing point twice. The opening is rhetorical rather than front-loaded, and phrases like 'so you can check us in ten seconds' do not earn their place, though the AGPL warning is genuinely useful.

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?

It covers core behavior, error handling, and read-only status, which is good for a two-parameter lookup. But because there is no output schema, it should be explicit that id and family are alternative (not optional together) inputs, describe the successful return shape more precisely, and resolve the family-value mismatch.

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 schema already documents both parameters, so baseline is 3; the description adds useful meaning by explaining id's optional prefix and the semantic family groups. However, the English family list in the description ('permissive', 'weak_copyleft', etc.) does not match the schema's family values ('permisiv', 'copyleft_slab', etc.), creating real ambiguity for an agent.

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 frames the tool as answering whether a project can be sold when built on a given component, and says giving an id returns an answer with the licence file address. It is specific about the resource (licence) and the question it resolves, but it never names sibling tools or draws an explicit boundary against them.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool ('whether you are allowed to sell what you build on it') and explains the two input modes: id for a single answer, family for a list. It does not state exclusions or compare against sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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