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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing return content (replacement, since-version, install instructions, migration note) and ecosystem scope.

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 sentences plus examples: first sentence gives purpose and output, second gives usage guidelines. Extremely concise with zero wasted words.

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 simple lookup tool with one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description plus schema provide a complete picture: what it does, when to use, what it returns, and ecosystem scope.

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% with a clear parameter description. The main description does not add additional parameter details beyond the schema, but the examples in the first sentence provide context. 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Look up the modern replacement for a deprecated Daml/Canton CLI command, npm package, or tool'. It provides specific examples and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_deprecations.

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 says 'Use when a user mentions a specific deprecated symbol; use list_deprecations to enumerate all known pairs or browse by category.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use with a named alternative.

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