ares_get_trade_licenses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields and data source, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature, authentication requirements, or error behavior. 'List' implies a read operation, but more explicit behavioral context would be useful.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by useful return details. No redundant words or 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?

For a simple one-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what data will be returned and from which source. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and understand the response.

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 describes the only parameter 'ico' as 'Czech IČO of the entity' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific detail, so it meets the baseline for schema-covered 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 clearly states the tool lists trade licenses (živnostenská oprávnění) of a Czech entity from the Trade Register (RŽP), and specifies the returned data (subject, type, validity period, fields of activity). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like ares_get_statutory_bodies or ares_lookup_company.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: for Czech entities needing trade license data from RŽP. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently evident. Unlike a 5, it lacks an explicit reference to sibling tools or when-not-to-use.

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