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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety bar is pre-covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it returns the 3 NEAREST entries which may not exactly match, a near-miss caveat that changes how an agent should trust the result.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the routing sentences carry real decision value rather than filler. It is dense and long for a single-parameter lookup tool, but each sentence (scope, return caveat, exclusions, alternatives) earns its place.

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, and the description compensates by explaining the return shape (3 nearest entries) and its reliability limits. Combined with the exclusions and alternatives, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% with the schema itself supplying example question strings. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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+resource (look up answers in the Canton Network developer FAQ) and enumerates the exact topic domains it covers. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming semantic_search, get_doc, get_started_guide, and get_api_reference as separate routes.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Canton-specific' questions), when-not ('do NOT use for other blockchains or general/non-Canton questions'), and alternatives with the selecting condition ('if none of the 3 directly answers... use semantic_search... then get_doc'). Routing to get_started_guide and get_api_reference is also stated.

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