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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond confirming the tool is read-only and Canton-specific. With annotations present, the description's marginal value for transparency is limited.

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 concise and front-loaded, immediately stating the purpose. It consists of three sentences with no redundancy, efficiently covering purpose, scope, and usage guidance.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It defines the tool's purpose, scope, and usage boundaries. The lack of return value description is a minor gap, but not critical given the tool's straightforward nature.

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% with a single enum parameter. The description adds value by spelling out the full names of each API (e.g., 'JSON Ledger API' instead of just the enum value 'json_ledger_api'), helping the agent understand the parameter more intuitively.

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 clearly states it retrieves a structured reference for a specific Canton Network API, listing the exact APIs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search/semantic_search by explicitly noting they are for broader doc lookups.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool (when a user names one of the listed Canton APIs) and when not to use it (for GitHub, REST, or non-Canton APIs). It also directs users to search/semantic_search for broader lookups.

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