security_audit_licence_compatibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'No auth required,' 'Rate limit: 60/minute,' 'Max 50 items,' and details about static vs. network-dependent paths. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the main action. Every sentence adds value: purpose, input format, output, behavior notes (static vs network), limits, rate limit, auth, target audience, and fallback instruction. No wasted words; compact yet complete.

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 (two input paths, multiple constraints), the description covers all necessary aspects: inputs, processing behavior, output nature, rate limits, concurrency, audience, and error handling via feedback. Although no output schema is provided, the description sufficiently describes the verdict format.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the two input paths: 'Input package names (with ecosystem) or SPDX IDs' and noting that the package path uses deps.dev while SPDX IDs use a static table. This clarifies the difference between the two optional parameter groups.

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 purpose: 'Audit the licence compatibility of your entire dependency list.' It specifies inputs (package names with ecosystem or SPDX IDs) and outputs (COMPATIBLE/CONFLICT verdict with conflicting pairs and recommended action). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'security_fetch_licence_analysis' which may focus on fetching rather than compatibility analysis.

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 explicit usage context: 'For developers and compliance teams auditing open source licence risk before shipping.' It also gives performance hints (static SPDX table, deps.dev network calls, concurrency limit). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings, nor does it provide 'when not to use' guidance, though the fallback instruction partially addresses cases where the tool doesn't meet needs.

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