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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it is Canton-specific, requires a package name, and returns specific fields (version tag, publish date, GitHub link). No contradictions. Could mention if package name is case-sensitive, but not critical.

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 concise sentences: first defines the tool's output and scope, second provides usage differentiation. No unnecessary words, high information density.

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 simple single parameter with complete schema description, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent safety, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and usage. No output schema needed for this straightforward retrieval.

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 with schema description. The description reinforces the required package name and lists the four valid values (canton, daml, dpm, splice), adding clarity beyond the schema which also suggests full owner/repo.

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 tool gets the single latest release (version tag, publish date, GitHub release-notes link) for one named Canton-ecosystem package, listing valid packages: canton, daml, dpm, splice. It distinguishes from the sibling tool get_current_versions.

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 states when to use: when the user names a specific package, with examples. Also specifies when to use the alternative get_current_versions instead, providing clear usage boundaries.

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