get_license_evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety and side-effect profile. The description adds the useful caveat that the result is not legal advice, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it does not add much else.

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 compact sentence and is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is so terse that it leaves out necessary context about parameters and tool selection, so the brevity is not fully 'appropriate' for the tool's complexity.

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?

The output schema and annotations carry a fair amount of context, but the description still leaves important gaps: it never connects the tool to a project, provides no parameter semantics, and does not explain how this differs from get_project_facts. An agent could call it with project_id, but may not understand the scope or limitations of the returned evidence.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it does not mention project_id, locale, or request_id at all. The phrase 'license evidence' only weakly implies what project_id should be and provides no guidance on the optional parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get observed license evidence' clearly states what the tool returns. It is reasonably clear, though it does not mention 'project' even though project_id is the key parameter, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_project_facts.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_project_facts or browse_radar_projects. The disclaimer about legal advice is useful but does not help an agent decide when this tool is the appropriate choice.

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