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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds return-shape context ("a compact table you can scan"), which matters because there is no output schema, though it stops short of describing table columns or row limits.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it returns, how to filter, scope, then routing. Zero padding and the core value is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by characterizing the result as a compact scannable table, and annotations carry the safety profile. Only minor gaps remain (no pagination or output-field detail) for a simple single-optional-parameter read tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum already documents every category value, so the description's inline category list adds little. Baseline 3 is correct — the schema does the heavy lifting here.

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 (List) and resource (deprecated Daml/Canton CLI commands, packages, and tools) plus the payoff (modern replacements). It draws a clear boundary against sibling migrate_lookup, which handles a single name.

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?

"Use this to enumerate or browse; use migrate_lookup for a specific name" explicitly routes between two tools, and "Canton/Daml/Splice only" scopes the domain. Both the when-to-use and the alternative are stated outright.

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