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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds return-content detail (replacement, since-version, install instructions, migration note), which is helpful context but not deep behavioral disclosure beyond that.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by returns and scope before usage guidance. The inline example list is slightly long but earns its place by illustrating accepted input forms; no sentence is wasted.

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-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value contract, domain scope, and invocation guidance. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the query field as a best-match search. The description's examples clarify the kind of symbol the query accepts but add no syntax or format beyond the schema. 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?

Specific verb (look up) plus a precise resource (the modern replacement for a deprecated Daml/Canton CLI command, package, or tool). The concrete examples ('daml start', '@daml/ledger', 'splice-wallet-payments subscription') and the stated scope (Canton/Daml/Splice only) make the tool immediately identifiable apart from generic search 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?

Explicitly states the trigger ('when a user mentions a specific deprecated symbol') and names list_deprecations as the alternative for enumerating or browsing all pairs. It does not mention check_deprecation, which appears to be a close sibling, leaving one plausible alternative undistinguished.

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