Licence and attribution for PRH data

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 substantive content: the response covers attribution obligations and concrete restrictions (no PRH/YTJ logos, no look-alike UI, GDPR). It never states that the tool is read-only with no side effects, nor what form the terms come back in, which is a notable gap given zero annotation coverage.

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 compact phrase with zero filler, and the most decision-relevant content ('restrictions (no PRH/YTJ logos, no look-alike UI, GDPR)') is front-loaded and parenthetical. It is a noun fragment rather than a sentence, which costs a little clarity but wastes nothing.

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, zero-output-schema tool this is close to adequate: the agent knows the topics returned. However, nothing indicates the return format, whether the terms are intended for human display or machine parsing, or whether attribution obligations propagate to downstream use — the main things an agent needs to act on licence output.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description implicitly confirms this is a no-input informational lookup rather than a query tool.

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 names the resource precisely — licence, attribution and restrictions for PRH data — and even enumerates the restriction types covered (no PRH/YTJ logos, no look-alike UI, GDPR). It lacks an explicit verb ('returns/describes'), but an agent can tell what this tool is for versus siblings such as prh_company_events or prh_watch_companies, which serve entirely different purposes.

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 sentence says when to call this tool or what it should precede/follow. There is no mention of the sibling *_licence_info tools (fingrid, ecb, fmi, vies, euvd, digitraffic, ted) or of whether licence terms must be checked before redistributing PRH data, so usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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