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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond these: it explicitly states that this tool does not make a licensing decision, preventing agents from over-interpreting the result. This is valuable negative disclosure even though the description does not address edge cases like unknown authority names.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action and object, and the second sentence adds an important boundary that prevents misuse. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with one required string parameter, an output schema, and strong safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the input, the scope, and a critical non-behavior. It does not mention how to obtain valid authority names, but the sibling tool list_supported_authorities implies that route and the output schema can describe return values.

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 carries the burden of explaining the single 'authority' parameter. It does so by identifying it as a named local licensing authority, which clarifies that the string is a display name or identifier for a licensing authority rather than an arbitrary value. It could be more explicit about the expected format or source, but it adds enough meaning for such a simple parameter.

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 uses a specific verb, 'check whether...is supported', and clearly names the resource: one named local licensing authority. It also distinguishes itself from sibling list_supported_authorities by emphasizing the single-authority scope. The added clarification that it does not make a licensing decision removes ambiguity about its role.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when you need to verify support for a single named authority rather than listing all supported authorities. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the single-authority framing provides enough contextual guidance for an agent to select it appropriately.

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