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, so the tool is safe and read-only. The description 'Evaluate' aligns but adds no behavioral context beyond that. With annotations present, the burden is lower; description is adequate but not enriching.

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, focused sentence with no waste. Every word contributes to the purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 2 parameters, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not mention the need for a prior scan result (implied in scan_json description) or the expected output structure, but the output schema compensates.

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 coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (scan_json and policy_json). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline. No additional context like format constraints is needed.

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 verb 'evaluate' and the resource 'package licenses against compliance policy'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'policy_check' and 'compliance' by specifying license compliance focus. However, it could be more specific by mentioning the input source (previous scan result).

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'policy_check' or 'compliance'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., need a prior scan from 'scan' tool) or when not to use it.

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