fmi_alerts_licence_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful context: the licence is CC BY 4.0 and the payload is attribution metadata, which tells the agent this is a safe informational read. It stops short of stating that the call takes no arguments, needs no auth, and returns a static/licence text rather than dynamic data.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, hedging, or repetition. Every word (tool subject, licence identifier, and payload type) earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is close to sufficient: it names both the licence and the attribution content the caller will get. The main residual gap is that with no output schema nothing describes the shape of the response (text block vs. fields vs. URL).

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 beyond confirming it is argument-free. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly does not waste words on phantom parameters.

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?

Clear verb ('Return') plus a specific resource ('FMI CC BY 4.0 open-data licence and attribution metadata'), which distinguishes it from the fingrid/ecb/vies licence siblings. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely named 'fmi_fingrid_licence_info', which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative. Usage is only implied by the resource itself — an agent infers it should call this when it needs attribution text for FMI data. The nearby 'fmi_fingrid_licence_info' is never addressed as a routing choice.

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