doc_canonical_ref

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

The description notes the PRO+ plan requirement, which is a behavioral constraint. However, with no annotations, it doesn't clarify read-only behavior, error handling, or what the canonical reference looks like. The verb 'get' implies a safe operation but this is not explicit.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose, with the plan note appended. No extraneous information.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what it returns and when to use it. It only says 'canonical reference' without defining the format or context, leaving the agent uncertain about the result structure. It also doesn't differentiate from similar doc lookup tools.

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?

The input schema defines zero parameters, so the description has no responsibility to explain parameter semantics. Baseline 4 applies as no parameters need documentation.

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 action (get), the resource (canonical reference for a doc symbol), and the plan restriction (PRO+). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like doc_definition and doc_hover by the specific 'canonical reference' concept.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like doc_definition or doc_resolve_link. The only contextual clue is the PRO+ plan mention, which is a restriction, not usage guidance.

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