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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is public and requires no API key, which is an auth requirement an agent needs. It omits pagination/default-limit behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three short clauses, zero filler: what it returns, the filters, then the auth posture. Front-loaded with the resource and scope, so an agent can decide quickly.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description states what the results contain (licences and the content they cover), which covers the return-value burden. Filters, defaults and auth are all accounted for; only result ordering/pagination detail is absent, which is minor for a read-only browse tool.

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 100% with all three parameters documented (limit, article_id, publisher_id), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only restates the two filter names and says nothing about limit or UUID format, adding no value beyond the schema. Baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Lists licences recently issued on Opedd and the content they cover,' which tells an agent exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as list_licence_orders or verify_license, so it falls 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?

'Public; no key needed' plus the two named filters imply a browsing/discovery use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to an alternative for related needs (e.g. list_licence_orders). Usage is inferable but not stated.

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