Licence audit, page read and endpoint check (AI-operated)

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

States it's free and AI-operated, implying no human involvement and no cost. Does not explicitly mention read-only nature, side effects, or rate limits, though 'checks' suggests a safe operation.

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?

Very concise, two sentences. No unnecessary words, clearly structured with free vs paid distinction.

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?

Provides sufficient context for expected output (status code, latency, and paid extras). Lacks mention of error handling or non-responsive endpoints, but overall gives a clear functional picture.

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 descriptions for 'url' and 'method' are identical to text; no additional meaning provided. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states the tool's function: checking an HTTPS endpoint and returning status code and latency. Also clarifies free vs paid capabilities.

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?

Mentions free vs paid tiers but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools or provide when-to-use guidance. Lacks clear conditions for choosing this over alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly says 'Returns' and describes the content, indicating a read-only operation. It also discloses the return includes payment instructions and examples, but it does not explicitly state 'no side effects' or 'read-only'. However, the verb 'Returns' strongly implies a safe, non-mutating operation. The description is transparent about what the tool returns, which is the primary behavioral trait.

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 moderately long but well-structured: it opens with the primary return value (costs, chains, payment methods), then details the payment mechanisms, and ends with examples. It is not overly verbose, but some sentences are dense. The key information is front-loaded, and every clause adds value.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description must fully explain the return content. It does so: it specifies what is returned (costs, chains, payment methods, examples), the exact payment processes (facilitator-based x402 with no gas and transaction hash, or self-broadcast transaction), and the fact that free worked examples are included. For a parameterless tool, this is complete and sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke it correctly.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, which is appropriate because the tool's behavior is fully described without parameter details.

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 states the tool returns payment terms: costs, chains, payment methods (x402 EIP-3009 via facilitator or self-broadcast transaction), and free worked examples. It is specific and distinct from sibling preview tools (endpoint_check_preview, licence_audit_preview, page_read_preview) which are all about checking or reading previews, not payment information.

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 implies usage for retrieving payment terms and examples, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others or mention alternatives. Since siblings are semantically different, the usage context is clear by content, but no explicit guidance or exclusion is provided. An agent would infer based on the topic, but it lacks direct routing instructions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior ('never clones, builds or executes anything'), limitations ('Capped at 8 packages'), and operational context ('Operated by an AI, not by a person'). This is thorough transparency.

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 information-dense but well-structured: it states the core function, then constraints and exclusions, then the paid alternative. No redundant phrases; every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description indicates the return format ('each package's licence with the registry document'), and clarifies the scope and limitations. It also mentions the paid upgrade path, making it self-contained for an agent to decide whether to use it.

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?

Both parameters have full descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. It only reiterates 'public dependency manifest' which is already implied by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's function: 'Audits the first packages of a public dependency manifest and returns each package's licence with the registry document it was read from.' It distinguishes itself from the paid full audit via get_payment_terms.

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 explicitly says 'FREE' and 'Capped at 8 packages', and points to get_payment_terms for the full audit. It also clarifies what it does not do (never clones/builds/executes, no vulnerability scanning), giving clear conditions for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

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

The description discloses key behaviors: it avoids executing JavaScript, returns cleaned text, and includes specific elements (title, headings, first 800 characters). It also notes that each call is limited to public pages. However, it does not mention potential side effects, error conditions, or rate limits, though it covers the primary behavior well.

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 concise, using two sentences to convey the core functionality and the free/paid distinction. It is well-structured, front-loading the primary action and output, and avoids unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately specifies what the tool returns (title, headings, first 800 characters) and the parameter constraints. It could be more complete by mentioning error handling or edge cases, but for the tool's simple purpose, it is sufficiently informative.

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 single parameter 'url' is fully described with constraints: it must be an absolute https URL of a public page. This provides clear semantic guidance for the parameter, leaving no ambiguity about its format or requirements.

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 states the tool's action (reads one public web page), its scope (no JavaScript execution), and the specific output (title, headings, first 800 characters of cleaned text). It also distinguishes the free version from the paid call, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It mentions the paid call returns more data, but this is not a directive for choosing between tools. It lacks guidance on scenarios where this tool is preferred, such as quick previews or limited content needs.

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