security_fetch_licence_analysis

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: static local caching for common licences, network fallback for rare identifiers, risk-level assumption based on proprietary/commercial use, rate limiting, and no authentication needed. This exceeds the baseline requirement for a read-only analysis tool.

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 sentences, each earning its place: first sentence defines core functionality and output, second details operational behavior and constraints, third provides usage guidance and fallback procedure. No redundant or filler content.

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 simplicity (one string parameter, output schema present), the description covers all necessary aspects: input format, processing logic, edge-case fallback, assumptions, rate limits, auth, and error handling via feedback. No gaps for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by stating the parameter expects an 'SPDX licence identifier', which clarifies the input domain. However, it could further assist by giving examples (e.g., 'MIT' or 'GPL-3.0-only') or mentioning the need for a valid SPDX string, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 explicitly states the tool translates SPDX licence identifiers into plain English with specific return fields (obligations, permissions, limitations, risk level, OSI/FSF status). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like security_audit_licence_compatibility and security_fetch_package_licence, which focus on compatibility or package-level licence retrieval.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use context ('before including a dependency') and target audience (security engineers, developers). Includes fallback behavior (local static bundle for top-50, then API), rate limit (60/min), auth requirement (none), and explicit alternative action (call report_feedback if not useful).

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