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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the composition of the result — the ordered sequence of resources it will assemble — which matters because no output schema exists.

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 tight sentences/fragments with zero filler. The action and output shape are front-loaded, and the sibling disambiguation is placed last where it belongs.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies what is needed: what it builds, the section order it returns, and how it differs from the nearby guide tool. A note on output format details would complete it, but nothing essential is missing.

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 'goal' parameter is fully documented with examples in the schema itself. The description adds only the 'stated goal'/'topic-driven' framing, which the schema already conveys, so baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Construct') and resource ('structured Canton onboarding sequence') and enumerates the exact section flow it produces (whitepaper → docs → CIPs → forum threads → talks). It also explicitly differentiates itself from get_started_guide, so the agent can place it among the ~90 siblings.

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?

It names the alternative (get_started_guide) and gives a crisp selecting condition: 'topic-driven' vs 'background-driven'. That is real routing guidance, though it stops short of explicit when-not-to-use cases or prerequisites for the requested goal.

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