fossa_get_revision_attribution_json

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: Premium subscription required (403 otherwise), response shape not declared in OpenAPI and passed through as-is, and api_version v1 differing only in response shape. This goes beyond the annotations and prepares the agent for potential failure modes.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, then usage guidance, then constraints. Every sentence adds essential information with no fluff or repetition.

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 complexity (13 parameters, no schema descriptions, no declared response shape), the description is incomplete. It covers usage context and premium restriction but leaves the majority of parameters unexplained, and the passthrough response note does not compensate for the lack of parameter semantics.

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?

With a 0% schema description coverage and 13 parameters, the description is expected to compensate but only discusses api_version. It fails to explain the meaning or effect of the many include_* flags, exclude_package_labels, or the required locators. The names are somewhat self-descriptive but not sufficient for correct invocation.

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 returns a revision's attribution report as structured JSON, using the specific verb 'Return' and naming the resource. It distinguishes itself from rendered formats by explicitly contrasting with 'rendered formats' and referencing the reasoning vs. human presentation use case.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Prefer this over the rendered formats when the answer will be reasoned about rather than handed to a person.' It also mentions the api_version v1 legacy path and the Premium subscription requirement, which helps the agent decide whether to attempt the call.

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