Identify licenses

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it accepts 'however they are written', including deprecated SPDX IDs, and caps at 20 licenses. It does not address invalid-input behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists output attributes compactly. There is no filler or repetition of schema details, every clause adds meaning.

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 one simple array parameter, a true output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description provides all needed context for correct invocation. It covers input flexibility, capacity, and the scope of the returned information.

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 schema provides zero description for the 'licenses' parameter, so the description carries the full burden. It compensates effectively with concrete examples ('Apache License 2.0', 'GPLv3', 'New BSD') and clarifies that deprecated SPDX ids are accepted, making the semantics of the string array clear.

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 action ('Identifies') and the resource ('up to 20 licenses'), and lists the specific output fields (SPDX id/name, OSI/FSF status, copyleft class, OSADL obligations). It signals the tool normalizes arbitrary license strings, which helps distinguish it from siblings, though it does not explicitly name 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 implies this is the tool to use when you have license strings in varied or deprecated formats and need normalized identification. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to use alternatives like check_compatibility or package_licenses, nor any exclusions.

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