Check a whole manifest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior (scans manifest, reports dependencies with obligations), notes automatic format detection, and explains that package-lock.json embeds licenses, avoiding registry lookups. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state absence of side effects. Minor gap, but context is sufficient.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded: the first sentence defines purpose, the second covers usage, and the third adds actionable input guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff, and the structure flows logically.

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 only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, and how to provide input effectively. It also addresses the distinction from siblings, making it complete for the context. No gaps are evident.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by advising to pass a lockfile for transitive dependencies and explaining why package-lock.json is best (embeds licenses, no lookups). It also lists accepted formats implicitly through schema, but the description reinforces the preferred format and rationale, going beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair: 'Scan an entire dependency manifest and report every dependency whose license creates an obligation for this shipping model.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools check_dependency_license (single dependency) and explain_license (license explanation) by focusing on a whole manifest and filtering based on the shipping model.

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?

Explicit usage context is given: 'Use when reviewing a project as a whole, preparing for due diligence, or after a large dependency change.' It also provides actionable advice to pass a lockfile (package-lock.json) and explains why it's preferred, covering when to use this tool over alternatives. This exceeds the requirement for clear context and exclusions.

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