security_fetch_licence_analysis

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds rich details: static bundle for common licences, fallback to API, assumption of proprietary/commercial use, rate limit (60/min), no auth required. All non-contradictory.

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 dense with useful information and well-structured, front-loading the purpose. It could be slightly more concise, but every sentence provides value.

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 parameter, output schema exists, annotations present), the description is fully complete: it covers input, output, behavior, fallback, assumptions, rate limit, auth, and even a feedback mechanism. No gaps.

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% with a clear description for spdx_id. The description adds examples (MIT, Apache-2.0) and context about the static bundle, which is not in the schema. This goes beyond the baseline.

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 what the tool does: it provides a plain-English explanation of a software licence given an SPDX identifier, listing obligations, permissions, limitations, risk level, and OSI/FSF status. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on SPDX identifiers rather than package-level queries.

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 specifies the target audience and use case: security engineers and developers assessing a licence before including a dependency. It also provides fallback behavior (static bundle vs. API) and rate limit info. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like security_fetch_package_licence.

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