License Compliance Check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds value by detailing behavioral specifics: exactly which license types are flagged and why (e.g., copyleft requires source disclosure). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a bullet list of flags and examples. Every sentence serves a purpose, though slightly informal phrasing prevents a perfect 5.

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 only 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it defines the tool's scope, flags specific license types, and gives example user intents. It does not mention the exact return format, but the examples imply a report/answer-style output, making it sufficient for most use cases.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters: 'project' and 'directory.' The description's examples add some context but no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Check dependency licenses for commercial/SaaS compatibility.' It lists specific license types it flags (GPL/AGPL, non-commercial, unknown), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like depsonar_cve or depsonar_deprecated.

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 context for when to use it ('Important for SaaS products to avoid legal issues') and includes examples of user queries. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with overlapping tools like depsonar_audit, so it's clear but lacks exclusions.

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