verify_license

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool operates offline, checks signature, and returns license terms. However, it does not mention any side effects, error handling, or authentication requirements. It is adequate but lacks detail for a fully transparent description.

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, no filler, directly stating purpose and output. Every word earns its place. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 hints at the return value but does not specify its structure (e.g., boolean or object). Parameters are partially explained. For a simple tool with two params and no output schema, it is minimally viable but could be more complete by describing the return format and certificate format.

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 50% (only expectKid has a description). The tool description adds context that the certificate is a 'license certificate' and that verification involves checking signature and terms, but it does not specify the certificate format or provide additional meaning beyond the schema. The compensation is partial.

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 verifies a license certificate offline, checking for valid signature and extracting terms. The verb 'verify' and resource 'license certificate' are specific, and the offline aspect distinguishes it from sibling tools like quote_license or license_track.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies offline verification, but it does not mention exclusions or provide context for choosing this over siblings. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use are stated.

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