Licence and attribution for Fingrid data

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only lists three topics. It does not state that the call is read-only, requires no authentication, or what shape the answer takes (terms text vs. structured fields), and it does not say whether rate-limit values are the caller's quota or the upstream API's policy.

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?

There is no wasted language, but the three-word fragment is under-specified rather than tight: it is not a sentence, has no structure, and gives the agent nothing front-loaded beyond keywords. Brevity here costs clarity rather than buying it.

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 truth for what this call yields, and it delivers three nouns. For a compliance/attribution tool the agent needs to know what content comes back (licence name, attribution string, quota numbers) and whether it applies to all Fingrid tools.

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 the baseline is 4. The empty schema means there is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and the listing of covered topics is sufficient parameter-level context.

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 is a bare noun list ("Licence, required attribution, rate limits.") that essentially restates the title "Licence and attribution for Fingrid data" plus one extra item. There is no verb and no explicit statement that it returns licensing terms for Fingrid data, leaving the agent to infer purpose from the tool name and title.

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 guidance is given, and no sibling is named even though the catalogue contains many parallel licence_info tools (ecb_licence_info, ted_licence_info, fmi_licence_info, digitraffic_licence_info, etc.) that an agent must distinguish this from. The agent must infer that this applies specifically to Fingrid data from the name alone.

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