Explain License

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It explicitly lists the dimensions covered (permissions, conditions, limitations, compatibility, gotchas) and the supported scope (15 major licenses plus deprecated forms). It does not detail handling of unsupported licenses or the exact return format, but for a simple informational tool this is reasonably transparent.

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: the first sentence states the core action, the second details what the explanation covers, and the third scopes supported inputs. No filler or 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the purpose, content coverage, and supported license scope. It could mention behavior for unsupported licenses or expected output format, but these are minor gaps for this complexity level.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single 'license' parameter, including an example. The description says 'specific SPDX license' but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema's description and example already convey. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Explain') and resource ('specific SPDX license') and clearly defines the tool's scope ('permissions, conditions, limitations, compatibility...'). It also differentiates from the sibling tool 'check-licenses' by focusing on plain-language explanation rather than checking or validating licenses.

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 makes the use case clear: use when you need a plain-language explanation of a license's meaning and implications. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with 'check-licenses', but the purpose is specific enough to guide selection.

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