Read a publisher's RSL licence terms

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the endpoint is public no-auth, that requesting jsonld:true embeds an HMAC-SHA256 signed receipt with a tdm:reservationSignedAt timestamp, and what the default response shape is. That is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the no-auth/discovery framing, and most sentences earn their place. It is dense with internal references ('Phase 12 Wave 1 W1.1', 'INVARIANTS.md W1.6') that add no value to an invoking agent.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it enumerates the four license types and the tdm_reservation field, and distinguishes the JSON vs JSON-LD shapes. Nothing needed to call the tool correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains why jsonld:true exists (regulators can post-hoc verify the reservation value and time) and confirms the default is the raw RSL Standard JSON shape. It does not add format detail for publisher_id beyond the schema's UUID/verified note.

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 and resource ('Fetch a publisher's RSL Standard manifest via GET /rsl-manifest') and pins the exact shape returned (4 canonical license types plus the CDSM Article 4(3) opt-out posture). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the confusable sibling article_53_attestation.

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 an explicit when-to-use ('discovery surface ... BEFORE going through the buyer-account signup flow') and an explicit when-not ('It is NOT an EU AI Act Article 53 attestation ... via article_53_attestation tool'). The alternative and the condition that selects it are both named.

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