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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds value beyond those by explaining result semantics — 'A permissive result means no source-disclosure duty; a blocked result means the license obligates you and the dependency should be replaced or the shipping model reconsidered' — which tells the agent what the outcome signifies and how to act on it.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: sentence one states purpose, sentence two gives usage timing, sentence three explains result interpretation. Purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler or 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?

Moderately complex tool (5 params, 3 enums) but it benefits from a rich output schema and full annotation coverage. The description covers the purpose, when to invoke it, and what the two outcome classes mean. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it and act on the result is missing.

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 all five parameters (including the three enums) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description references the shipping model in passing ('given how this project ships') but adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline-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 pair ('Determine whether adding or keeping a single open source dependency creates a legal obligation') and the central contextual variable ('given how this project ships'). The word 'single' cleanly separates it from the sibling check_manifest_licenses (which covers a manifest of dependencies), so an agent can tell them apart from the description alone.

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 explicit timing guidance: 'Call this BEFORE adding a new dependency to a project, and when auditing an existing one.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives (check_manifest_licenses, explain_license) or state when those should be chosen instead, leaving some exclusion guidance to inference.

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