npmLicenseCompatibility

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, indicating this is a safe, cacheable read operation. The description adds the specific behavioral context of checking license compatibility between packages, which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, error conditions, or what 'compatibility' means in practice. With annotations covering the safety profile, this meets the baseline for adding some value.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place by contributing essential 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (license compatibility analysis), rich annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but has gaps. It doesn't explain what 'compatibility' entails (e.g., conflicts, recommendations) or the output format, which is important since there's no output schema. For a tool with behavioral nuance, more context would be helpful, but annotations provide good safety coverage.

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%, with the 'packages' parameter fully documented in the schema as 'List of package names to check for license compatibility'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without additional param info in the description.

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 'Check license compatibility between multiple packages' clearly states the specific action (check), resource (license compatibility), and scope (between multiple packages). It distinguishes from sibling tools like npmVulnerabilities or npmScore by focusing specifically on license compatibility analysis rather than security, quality, or other package metrics.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing package names), exclusions (e.g., not for single packages), or comparisons to sibling tools like npmDeps or npmQuality that might provide related but different information. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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