get_dependency_license

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: data comes from POM <licenses> plus optional GitHub license metadata, and the category mapping is a static lookup with no external license API call. That last point is especially useful because it clarifies what the openWorldHint does and does not imply at runtime.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the core purpose before the source/provenance caveat. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, yet the description still usefully summarizes them. Safety is covered by annotations and data sources are explained. Minor gaps remain around error/unknown-license behavior and batch-scale expectations, but nothing essential to calling it correctly 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 the schema already documents projectPath, dependencies, groupId, artifactId, and the optional version. The description adds only indirect hints about resolution behavior (POM/GitHub sources) and does not explain the 100-item batch limit or how a missing version is resolved beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ("Resolve license intelligence for Maven dependencies") and enumerates exactly what it returns: SPDX id, category taxonomy, plain-English notes, and provenance source. This output enumeration implicitly separates it from the compliance-oriented sibling check_license_compliance, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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 by the purpose (use it when you need license info for Maven coordinates) but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as check_license_compliance or get_dependency_health. The agent must infer the boundary itself.

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