vies_licence_info

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only, static licence/policy payload, which is consistent, but it doesn't state that the response is non-parameterized static text, nor does it mention response format, caching, or licensing constraints on reuse of the data itself. No contradiction with anything, but only partial disclosure.

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 that enumerates the returned artifacts without filler. Slight deduction because the phrasing 'reuse policy ... safeguard details ... attribution metadata' is dense but slightly abstract, and no short lead-in like 'Static licence info for VIES data' anchors 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?

For a zero-parameter info tool with no output schema, the description should make clear what an agent receives and how to use it. It lists the categories but not the shape or granularity of the response, and gives no hint about pairing it with vies_validate_vat_batch for compliance/attribution workflows. Adequate but leaves gaps.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly does not waste words on 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Return') and enumerates the exact resources delivered: VIES reuse policy, GDPR company-level safeguards, and attribution metadata. It is clearly a static informational/legal-metadata tool, distinct in substance from the sibling action tools like vies_validate_vat_batch. The only weakness is that, among the many '*_licence_info' siblings, it doesn't explicitly frame itself as the VIES-specific member of that family.

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 indication of when an agent should call this versus the other VIES tools or the other '*_licence_info' tools. No prerequisites, no mention of whether it is optional context to fetch alongside a VAT validation call. The agent must infer usage 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.