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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: 'Free, no key' discloses auth/cost expectations, and it previews that the response includes duties covered plus what is still missing.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger, then the deliverable, then a compact example call. Three short sentences with no filler, though the embedded JSON example makes the final sentence dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value enumeration is not required, yet the description still hints at the response shape. With trigger, auth note, and a full parameter example provided, the only unmet need is how to format the sole required 'license' field, which the example partly resolves.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and the worked example call supplies values for all five parameters including the optional title, author, source_url and changes. It does not explain the string-vs-boolean duality of 'changes' or the expected license identifier format, leaving a small gap.

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 verb and deliverable: it produces the attribution line a license requires, in three formats. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like check_license or license_compatibility, and the trigger condition ('reuse material that requires credit') pins down the resource.

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?

'Call when you reuse material that requires credit' gives an explicit usage trigger. It does not name an alternative sibling or state when NOT to use it (e.g. versus check_license or issue_rights_manifest), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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