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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is 'Keyless', it reports 'what scanners found in the shipped files' rather than only manifest claims, and it enumerates return contents including source repo, commit, hashes, and completeness scores. There is no contradiction with the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then packs the return payload into a clear list, and ends with terse operational guidance. Every sentence earns its place, including 'Keyless', which conveys an important auth behavior in a single word.

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 read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it names the data fields returned, the authoritative question it answers, the fact that it uses scanner findings, and the auth requirement. The schema covers required parameters, so nothing critical is left unstated.

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 all 7 parameters with descriptions and examples, so the schema carries the full burden. The description reinforces the exact-version concept and mentions the 'declared SPDX licence' output, but does not add new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the curated licence and attribution record for one exact component version from ClearlyDefined.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like clearlydefined_search by emphasizing exact-version, scanner-derived licence facts rather than general lookup.

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 gives clear use cases, such as 'what licence is <package>@<version> really under' and 'who do I have to attribute', which tells an agent when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the authoritative-scope framing implies the boundary.

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