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.