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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint/openWorld/idempotent) by disclosing cost ($0.003 USDC per call via x402 or prepaid credits), the free-trial availability, an input cap of 50 dependencies, and a 'not legal advice' disclaimer. This is exactly the extra context an agent needs before committing to a paid call.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, inputs and outputs before pricing. It is slightly overloaded with parenthetical licence examples and payment details, but nearly every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

Covers inputs, verdict vocabulary, dependency limit, pricing model and legal disclaimer, and an output schema exists for return-value detail. Only minor gap is that it doesn't hint at the shape of the per-dependency reason field beyond naming licence families.

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 100% and each parameter (usage enum, project, dependencies) already carries a full description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the same project/usage/SPDX-id examples rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Licence compatibility check') plus the exact inputs accepted (project licence, usage mode, up to 50 dependencies) and the exact outputs produced (ok/conditions/review/incompatible with reason). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like compat-check, package-audit or dependency-verdict.

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?

Gives a clear context: describe your project's licence and distribution mode plus dependencies, and receive a per-dependency compatibility verdict. However it never names an alternative or states when NOT to use it (e.g. vs compat-check or package-audit), leaving that routing to inference.

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