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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world (openWorldHint=false), and the description's 'Canton-specific' note is consistent with the closed-world hint. It adds no further behavioral detail such as result shape, depth of the graph, or any limits, so with annotations carrying the safety profile a 3 is appropriate.

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 operation in the first sentence and reinforces it with a concrete question. 'building a quick dependency picture' is mildly redundant filler, but there is no wasted framing overall.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description supplies enough to invoke it correctly. The only residual gap is that, absent an output schema, the shape of the returned dependency picture is undefined.

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% for the single 'topic' parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description's phrase 'matching a topic' adds no syntax, format, or matching semantics beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('map') and resource ('ecosystem_projects ... to the SDK versions and repos they appear alongside'), which clearly conveys the dependency-graph operation. It distinguishes itself from list-style siblings like list_ecosystem_projects by emphasizing the cross-linking, though it doesn't name any sibling explicitly.

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 quoted use case ('if I build with X SDK version, who else is on it?') gives an agent a concrete triggering scenario, and 'Canton-specific' scopes it to the relevant ecosystem. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it.

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