get_license_evidence

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds contextual value by noting the evidence is 'observed' and that the result is not legal advice. It does not contradict any annotations, but it adds no further behavioral detail such as completeness guarantees or limitations.

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 very short and every word earns its place. The key action and the important 'not legal advice' caveat are present. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only tool, though it does lean toward under-specification rather than deliberate completeness.

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 exists, so return values are covered by structured data, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the description lacks usage context and parameter semantics, so an agent has to infer when to select this tool among the siblings and what the parameters mean.

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 for parameter meaning, but it does not. project_id, locale, and request_id are never explained. The parameter names and enum are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get observed license evidence.' The word 'observed' adds useful precision, and the annotation title clarifies it is project-scoped. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like get_project_facts, so it stops short of a 5.

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 description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_project_facts or browse_radar_projects. The disclaimer 'not legal advice' is a caveat, not usage guidance. No exclusions or routing conditions are given.

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