Check one dependency for license obligations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the meaning of results ('A permissive result means no source-disclosure duty; a blocked result means...') but does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or any error conditions. This is adequate but not rich; a note about being non-destructive would improve it.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and immediately provides usage timing. Every sentence adds value: the first defines what it does and when to use it; the second explains result interpretation. No fluff or redundancy.

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 5 parameters (3 enums), an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key behavioral context: when to call, what question it answers, and how to interpret results. It ties the distribution_model to the shipping model. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but the output schema likely handles that. Overall, it's complete for its complexity.

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 explains all parameters in detail (including enums and examples). The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, which meets the baseline for high coverage. It does hint at the importance of distribution_model by referencing 'how this project ships', but this is not about parameter syntax.

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's purpose: 'Determine whether adding or keeping a single open source dependency creates a legal obligation.' It also contextualizes it with 'given how this project ships' and explicitly says to call it BEFORE adding a dependency, which distinguishes it from broader checks like check_manifest_licenses.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: 'Call this BEFORE adding a new dependency to a project, and when auditing an existing one.' It also explains what a permissive vs. blocked result means, giving actionable next steps. However, it does not mention when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for multiple dependencies) or name alternatives.

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