sources

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

With no annotations provided at all (no readOnlyHint, no destructiveHint), the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. This is clearly a read-only informational tool with zero parameters, so the risk profile is low and inherently safe. The description accurately conveys it's a passive reporting tool, which is sufficient given the tool's trivial side-effect surface. It doesn't hide any destructive or mutating behavior.

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, dense sentence that packs in exactly what's needed: coverage scope ('every corpus pack loaded') and the four dimensions reported (authorship, license, redistribution/commercial use, citation). Zero wasted words, appropriately sized for a parameterless reporting 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It tells the agent the scope ('every corpus pack loaded') and the content dimensions. It doesn't describe the return format or structure, but with no output schema and a simple informational purpose, the description covers the essential usage context well enough.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are no properties to document). The no-parameter nature is consistent with the description's framing as a holistic report of all loaded corpus packs. With no parameters to explain, there's nothing missing in the description.

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 what the tool does: it reports information about every loaded corpus pack covering authorship, license, redistribution/commercial use rights, and citation format. The verb is implied (it 'reports' or 'shows' this information), and it names a specific resource (corpus packs). It's distinguishable from siblings like corpus_stats since it focuses on provenance/legal metadata rather than usage statistics, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself.

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 context is implied: one would use this to learn about licenses, citation, and redistribution rights for loaded corpus packs. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives, no stated exclusions, and no mention of how this differs from corpus_stats or breakdown. The usage context is understandable but not explicitly framed.

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