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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the surprising case where old CIPs put the actual proposal text in attachments while get_cip only returns a header block, plus the exact return contents. It stops short of pagination/empty-result behavior, so not a full 5.

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 action and return payload, then the routing and scope caveats. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the return-field enumeration and the disambiguation clauses make it a longish block rather than a tight one.

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, but the description fully describes the returned fields, and annotations cover the safety/idempotency profile. It even pre-empts the confusing edge case where the attachment carries the real proposal text, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret results 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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented with format examples ("0001", "CIP-0042"), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 (get) and resource (file/PDF attachments of a single CIP), enumerates the returned fields (filename, page count, URL, extracted text), and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings get_cip and get_cip_votes. An agent can tell exactly what it retrieves without opening the 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 explicit routing: use get_cip for the index entry vs this tool for actual proposal text in older PDF-only CIPs, and use get_cip_votes for the who-voted-how breakdown. It also states scope boundaries ('Canton ecosystem only. Not Cardano or other CIP schemes'), which is a when-not rule.

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