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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral details: returns aggregated per-source counts, not individual items. No contradictions. Could add more on rate limits or pagination, but overall good.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value (purpose, use case, exclusions, ecosystem note). No wasted words.

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 simple tool with one parameter, good annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return type (aggregated counts), what sources are covered, and when to use alternatives. No gaps.

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?

Only one parameter 'id' with schema description covering 100% of its meaning. The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, which already explains the CIP ID format. Baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Find' and resource 'CIP mentions', lists specific sources (forum threads, mailing-list posts, etc.), and distinguishes from siblings like get_cip_citations, get_cip, and get_cip_votes. It also clarifies the ecosystem scope (Canton only).

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?

Explicitly tells when to use ('reverse-reference lookup' for 'who is discussing CIP-X'), when not to use (use get_cip_citations for individual items), and what tools to use instead for proposal text or votes. Also clarifies ecosystem limitation.

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