List Licenses

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that each entry contains a link to the full license text. That return-shape detail is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. It stops short of noting whether the list is static or cached, but for a trivial read-only enumeration the disclosure is solid.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with no filler or repetition of the title. Every sentence adds either scope, return content, or usage context.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed, what each item contains, and why an agent would want it. Only minor details (static vs. dynamic list, ordering) are absent.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No misleading parameter hints are present.

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 ('List all Creative Commons licenses available for new image submissions to PhyloPic') and scopes the resource precisely. No sibling tool touches licenses, so the agent can distinguish it immediately from the taxa/image/contributor tools.

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 closing sentence gives context ('useful for understanding what licenses are accepted when contributing images'), which implies when to call it. However, it never frames when-not to call it, nor points to any related tool for acting on the licenses, so usage is only implied rather than explicit.

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