validate_license_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the tool is a quick validation without deep analysis, and it details the return fields (safe_for_distribution, app_store_compatible, etc.). While it doesn't mention authentication or rate limits, it is transparent about its read-only nature and what the output contains.

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 with clear sections (intro, WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, WORKFLOW, RETURNS, Args, Returns). It is front-loaded with the core question and every sentence adds value without being verbose.

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 three parameters and output schema (described in Returns section), the description is complete. It covers the input parameters, return fields, workflow integration with siblings, and provides a common workflow example. No gaps are evident.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: licenses (list of SPDX identifiers with example), distribution (target with enumerated options), and check_app_store_compatibility (boolean with effect). It adds meaning beyond the bare schema by providing context and examples.

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 states the tool's purpose as providing a quick answer to 'Can I ship this with these licenses?' and specifies it analyzes a list of licenses without requiring a filesystem path. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly listing when to use and when not to use them.

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 includes explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections, naming alternative tools like scan_directory, validate_policy, and generate_legal_notices. It also provides the workflow position and a common workflow example, making it clear when to select this tool over others.

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