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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent, since proxying can invoke arbitrary downstream tools. It adds real context beyond annotations: it discloses that the call is proxied, that the result is returned, and the eligibility limits on target servers. It stops short of noting error behavior or rate limits.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the discovery pointer in the first sentence, then adds constraints. The 'Canton-only' trailing fragment is clipped but functional; overall it is tight and earns most of its length.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description states it returns the proxied result, and it covers the main caveat (fallback connect instructions for ineligible servers). For a 3-param federation tool this is largely complete, with only error/return-format specifics missing.

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 all three parameters. The description reinforces the server param by pointing to list_canton_mcps as the id source, but adds no syntax or format guidance beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (federate a tool call) and resource (another Canton MCP server), and explicitly routes to the sibling list_canton_mcps for discovery. An agent can distinguish this proxy from the dozens of content-retrieval siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use context via list_canton_mcps and states the operative exclusion: only free/hosted/no-auth MCPs can be proxied, while local or paid ones return connect instructions. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead for Y' alternative, but the constraints effectively define the eligible case.

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