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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the paid x402 pricing model (0.10 USDC per call on Base, 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days), the required X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding to the exact JSON arguments and route, and the Ed25519 signed receipt returned with the report. It also states the analytical limit — matching only, no interpretation — which is behavior an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint.

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 core capability is front-loaded in the first long sentence, followed by endpoint, safety bounds, pricing, and return contract in descending order of importance — good structure. It is dense and packs several operational details (contract path, human URL) that could be trimmed, but nearly every sentence carries decision-relevant information.

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 paid, single-input analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers what is analyzed, what the report contains, the signing scheme, the payment/auth requirements, and the read-only/no-side-effect scope. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to construct a valid, payable request.

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 description coverage is 100%, so text, label and format are already documented with lengths, enum and defaulting rules. The description adds only the concept of 'marker phrases' being matched against the submitted text, not any parameter-specific meaning (e.g. how label appears in the report, or when to force format). 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 names a specific verb and resource ('submit a license text') and then states exactly what the resulting report contains: the matched license family from an enumerated list (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD, GPL, LGPL, AGPL, MPL, ISC, Creative Commons, BUSL, SSPL) plus presence/absence of attribution, copyleft, patent and warranty-disclaimer passages. It also bounds the tool ('matches words, figures, dates and named items... does not interpret meaning'), which distinguishes it from the broader diligence/terms/claim evidence siblings.

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?

Usage context is clear: the agent must supply the license text itself because the tool performs 'no page fetch, no account access, no merchant contact and no money movement,' which implicitly rules out cases where the agent has only a URL. However, it never explicitly names an alternative sibling (e.g. terms-evidence-check, claim-evidence-check) or says when a different check is the better choice, so there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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