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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It is a noun phrase stating content, but does not explicitly say the tool 'returns' the terms, nor does it mention any side effects, response format, or access requirements.

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 extremely concise, a single short phrase with no fluff. The initial 'Free:' is slightly ambiguous and could be omitted without losing meaning, but the overall structure is appropriately minimal for such a simple tool.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description gives the essential content (license terms and disclaimer) but lacks an explicit statement of what the tool returns or that it is a read-only fetch. This is a clear gap given the absence of any other documentation.

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 tool has 0 parameters and the schema is trivially complete. The description does not need to explain parameters, and with no params the baseline is 4. It neither adds nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 resource (license terms and disclaimer) and its scope (agentfeeds.jp data), making it obvious that this tool retrieves these terms. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools (catalog, DEX spread, reg events, sanctions check) which all relate to other data categories.

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 is implied: if an agent needs the license terms or disclaimer for agentfeeds.jp, it should invoke this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it relative to alternatives, though none of the siblings serve a similar purpose.

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