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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: operates on public manifests only, never clones/builds/executes, and caps at 8 packages. This is thorough behavioral disclosure for a free preview tool.

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 dense but efficient, front-loading the key purpose and limitations in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: cost, scope, and safety constraints are covered without fluff. Well-structured for quick scanning.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description fully covers what an agent needs to call it correctly: the input manifest format, the distribution param's role, the 8-package cap, and the safety profile. Nothing critical 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 schema already fully describes both parameters with 100% coverage, including the enum for distribution and the format for manifest_url. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it only implies that manifest_url is the input for the audit, which is already clear. 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 audits the first packages of a public dependency manifest and returns licenses with source documents. It specifies what it does not do (no cloning, building, executing, vulnerability scanning), which uniquely distinguishes it from siblings like endpoint_check_preview and page_read_preview.

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 explicitly says when to use the free preview (for a limited 8-package audit) and when to use the paid full audit via get_payment_terms. It also clarifies limitations (caps at 8 packages, no vulnerability scanning), guiding the agent to the right tool for full audits.

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