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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the retrieval mechanism (exact title/body words plus semantic meaning over the CIP index) and the Canton-specific restriction, which tells the agent about recall behavior and scope.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the use case. Every clause carries signal (retrieval method, scope, intent).

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 one-parameter read-only lookup tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It explains purpose, scope, and search method; the only minor gap is not stating explicitly what shape the matches come back as, though with no output schema that is a small omission.

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% with a single 'feature' parameter already documented and exampled in the schema. The description restates the input concept but adds no syntax, formatting, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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 (find) and resource (the matching CIP) with scope qualifiers: Canton features/capabilities, searched over titles, bodies, and semantic meaning. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_cips (enumerate all) and get_cip (fetch one), which the agent can infer from the framing.

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 a clear trigger: 'Use to answer "is there a CIP for X?"', which frames the lookup intent well. It does not, however, name alternatives such as semantic_search or list_cips, so the agent must infer that those are not the right fit.

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