License Compliance Scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description's 'Evaluate' aligns with a read-only operation. However, the description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., that it does not modify state) beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded. While it is brief, it contains no unnecessary words. It could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 params, output schema present, annotations rich), the description is minimal but sufficient for a read-only evaluation tool. However, it does not explain the default policy or the meaning of evaluation results, which may leave gaps for the agent.

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 descriptions of scan_json and policy_json are already present in the schema. The tool description does not add further meaning or clarification beyond what the schema provides, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 'Evaluate package licenses against compliance policy' clearly states the action (evaluate) and the resource (package licenses) against a policy. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scan' (which produces the input) and 'compliance' (broader scope).

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 usage after obtaining a scan result, but does not explicitly state prerequisites, when to use vs. alternatives (e.g., 'policy_check'), or when not to use. The schema hints at the need for a prior scan, but the description lacks explicit guidance.

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