check_license_compliance

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the interesting behavior: it discloses the verdict taxonomy, that missing license metadata degrades to review rather than a false ok (a fail-safe default), and that the result is a heuristic policy signal rather than legal advice, pointing to notes[]. It omits any rate-limit or pagination context for the external deps.dev calls.

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?

Front-loads the operation and scope, then layers in verdicts, the fail-safe rule, and the legal disclaimer in short sentences. The opening sentence is dense but every clause carries information; nothing is filler.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still surfaces the verdict semantics and notes[] pointer. Combined with annotations covering the read-only profile, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only cross-sibling routing is missing.

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 100%, so all three parameters (dependencies, projectLicense, disallow) are already documented, including that disallow replaces the default set entirely. The description reinforces the disallow/projectLicense relationship but adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (aggregate/flag) and resource (SPDX licenses across the transitive closure of Maven GAVs), and names the underlying deps.dev endpoints. It is distinguishable from the single-artifact sibling get_dependency_license by its transitive-closure scope, but no sibling is named explicitly to route the agent.

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?

Usage is implied through the two policy modes (projectLicense posture vs explicit disallow list) and the ok/review/violation verdicts, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance against siblings like get_dependency_license or audit_project_dependencies, and no stated prerequisites.

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