digitraffic_licence_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Return ... metadata' implies a non-mutating, argument-free read, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only semantics, idempotency, or whether any network/auth prerequisites apply. For a trivial no-arg metadata tool this is a modest gap rather than a serious one.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the data source. Nothing could be removed without losing identifying information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of information about the return value, and it does not indicate what fields the licence/attribution payload contains (licence name, URL, attribution string). Adequate to select the tool, but thin for correct downstream use of the result.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed to obtain the licence metadata.

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?

States a specific verb (Return) and a specific resource (Fintraffic Digitraffic CC BY 4.0 licence and attribution metadata), which distinguishes it from the many sibling *_licence_info tools by naming the exact data source and licence. It is only short of a 5 because 'attribution metadata' remains abstract about what is actually returned.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs licensing/attribution terms for Digitraffic data. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to call it (e.g. before redistributing Digitraffic data) and no mention of the related digitraffic_port_calls tools it complements.

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