Explain what a license requires

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool covers all shipping models at once, which is a useful behavioral trait, but it does not describe return format, side effects, or assumptions about the linkage parameter. The description offers some insight but lacks a broader behavioral picture.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by usage context. No redundant words or filler. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description gives enough for an agent to know when and how to invoke the tool. It clearly differentiates from siblings and describes the input. It could briefly mention what the output entails (e.g., per-shipping-model breakdown), but the missing details are not critical for invoking correctly.

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 documents both parameters thoroughly. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema – it merely mentions the input in passing. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('explain') and the resource (SPDX license identifier/expression), and specifies the scope ('what it requires across every shipping model at once'). It further distinguishes the tool from sibling tools by noting it is for the license itself 'rather than a specific package', with concrete examples.

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?

Explicitly provides a condition for use: 'Use when the question is about the license itself rather than a specific package'. Examples (comparing AGPL vs GPL, deciding what a project may depend on) clarify the intended scenario, and the phrasing implicitly contrasts with dependency-checking tools.

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