Licence Check

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only, is open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful operational context—that it is a paid remote POST route costing 0.10 USD via x402 on Base—but does not explain payment requirements, side effects, or how the check behaves.

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?

It is short, but the first line merely repeats the title and the useful content is limited to the remote route and price. The cost/route sentence is compact, but the description is not front-loaded with the tool's actual purpose.

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?

An output schema and complete parameter descriptions exist, so return values and inputs do not need explanation. However, the description leaves the core purpose and usage context missing, which is inadequate for a paid, open-world check tool surrounded by many compliance and attestation siblings.

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 description coverage is 100%, so dataset, intended use, jurisdiction, and licence_spdx are already well documented. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at the baseline when schema coverage is complete.

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 restates the tool name/title as 'Licence Check' and adds only a remote route and price. It does not explain what is being checked, what a licence check produces, or how this differs from compliance-oriented siblings like v1_compliance_check.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The only contextual detail is the POST route and x402 price, which does not help an agent decide between this and related compliance tools.

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