check_license_compatibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly explains the return structure: compatible, reason, restrictions, recommendations. It also documents the context parameter options. There is no mention of destructive actions or auth requirements, but the tool appears read-only and safe.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, a clarifying question, then clear sections for Args, Returns, and Example. Every sentence adds value. The example at the end concretely illustrates the tool's output, enhancing clarity without 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameters with examples, return structure, and a concrete usage example. There is no need for additional context like rate limits or authorization for this type of tool.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions. The description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: license1/2 are SPDX IDs with examples, and context lists its possible values (general, static_linking, dynamic_linking). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Check if two licenses are compatible for use together.' It includes a clarifying question 'Can I combine code under these two licenses?' and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_license_details or get_license_obligations by focusing specifically on compatibility.

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 clearly implies usage context: when combining code under two licenses. It provides a direct question the tool answers, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The context parameter hints at different use cases (static vs dynamic linking), adding nuance.

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