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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the three possible result states (DEPRECATED with replacement, CURRENT, NOT_FOUND) and the prose-scanning mode that reports every deprecated item mentioned.

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-loaded with the core purpose, then scope exclusions, usage imperative, and output states. Dense and information-bearing, though slightly redundant between the description's prose-scan sentence and the schema's identical note.

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, and the description supplies the return-value taxonomy (DEPRECATED/CURRENT/NOT_FOUND with replacement info), scope, and usage imperative. An agent has everything needed to select and call it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already explains the name parameter including the prose-scanning behavior. The description reinforces that the input may be a single name or a block of prose and clarifies the resulting scan semantics, adding modest 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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (Canton/Daml toolchain item: CLI, SDK package, command) with concrete examples. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_deprecations by operating on a single named item or prose block, and from out-of-scope checkers ('not a general npm/pip deprecation checker').

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('ALWAYS call before recommending any Canton tool or package') and scope exclusions. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternative (list_deprecations) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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