list_licenses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond these annotations: it specifies that the list contains licenses 'Crossref has seen' (i.e., actual observed licenses, not an authoritative registry) and that no single-license lookup exists. This clarifies the tool's empirical nature and limitation, going beyond the basic annotation hints.

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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and follows up with a key limitation. Every sentence 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 simple list tool with read-only annotations, the description covers the core function and a key limitation. However, it is incomplete regarding parameter semantics and does not describe the return format or pagination behavior. Given the low parameter coverage and no output schema, more detail would be needed for full completeness, but the tool is simple enough that the current description is minimally viable.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation for the four parameters (raw, rows, query, offset). With such low coverage, the description was expected to compensate, but it mentions none of the parameters, leaving the agent to guess at their meaning. This is a significant gap, especially since query and raw could have nuanced behavior.

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 clearly identifies the tool's function: 'List licenses Crossref has seen.' It uses a specific verb (List) and resource (licenses) with a clear scope (Crossref has seen). It also distinguishes from any potential single-license lookup by stating 'No single-license lookup exists,' which sets it apart from sibling tools that include individual get endpoints for other resources.

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?

The description implies that this is the only license-list endpoint and explicitly notes that no single-license lookup exists, which guides the agent to use this tool whenever license information is needed. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use scenarios or describe alternative tools, though no direct sibling alternative exists.

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