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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond them: the tool cross-references foundation_kb.DEPRECATED against doc_pages, forum_posts and blog_posts, and its output is a heuristic ('likely outdated') rather than authoritative — a distinction that matters when the agent decides whether to trust the result.

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Three short sentences, front-loaded with the outcome ('surface content that is likely outdated') before the supporting cross-reference mechanics. The clipped 'Canton-specific.' fragment is terse but functional and costs nothing.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what it returns conceptually, which data sources it joins, and the heuristic caveat. It stops short of describing result volume, ranking or output shape, which the absent output schema leaves undefined.

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?

Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Topic to scan'), so the schema already carries the semantics and the baseline is 3. The description only restates that the query is used to find matching content, adding no format, scope or matching-behavior detail beyond the schema.

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 ('surface') plus a precise resource class ('CCPEDIA content that mentions deprecated Canton/Daml tooling'), so the agent knows this is an outdated-doc finder, not a generic deprecation lookup. It is not explicitly contrasted with siblings like check_deprecation or list_deprecations, but the 'likely outdated content' framing is distinctive enough to route correctly.

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?

The phrase 'alongside the user's query: likely outdated' implies when to reach for it, and 'Canton-specific' implicitly bounds scope, but there is no stated when-not-to-use case and no mention of the obvious alternatives (check_deprecation, get_kb_drift, list_deprecations) that an agent would otherwise confuse it with.

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