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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it is free, uses official sources, returns source/review readiness signals rather than licensing decisions, and supports both global and authority-scoped checks. This is meaningful but not exhaustive, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states what the tool is in the first clause, gives usage triggers, explains parameter behavior, and then routes to alternatives. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 low-complexity, one-optional-parameter tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the core purpose, usage conditions, parameter behavior, output semantics, and sibling distinctions. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select 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 input schema already documents the single optional authority parameter at 100% coverage, including that it expects an exact supported authority name from list_supported_authorities and can be omitted for a global check. The description reinforces this but adds little semantic information beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as a source-health and freshness checker for licensing evidence, listing concrete user intents it serves (current, stale, changed, conflicted, inaccessible, under review, safe to rely on). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings and clarifies what it does not return (an applicant or vehicle licensing decision).

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance tied to user intent, explains how to narrow the check via a supported authority name versus the global view, and names specific sibling alternatives: taxi_licence_preflight for one-authority readiness and compare_licensing_requirements for cross-authority comparison. This fully routes the agent to the correct tool.

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