Search the Canton network directory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It correctly implies a read-only operation (browse/search) and specifies the return fields. However, it does not mention whether the operation has side effects, requires authentication, or has rate limits. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 very concise: two sentences plus an example. It front-loads the main action ('Browse or search...') and immediately follows with supported filters and output. Every sentence adds value, and the example is well-placed. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, its filters, and the returned fields. It also provides a concrete example. It could mention that results are limited by the 'limit' parameter and whether pagination is supported, but the schema covers the limit parameter. Overall, it is complete enough for typical usage.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a usage example that clarifies the interaction between orgType and query, and it explains the 'sv' enum value. While helpful, this does not significantly exceed the baseline of 3, as the schema's descriptions are already clear.

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: browsing or searching the Canton network directory of known parties. It lists filter options (orgType and free-text query) and the returned fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like resolve_party, which resolves specific parties, and get_balance, which queries balances. The example usage further clarifies purpose.

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 description implicitly guides usage by describing filters and providing an example query for 'who are the super validators?'. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, the context and example offer sufficient guidance for typical use cases. A more explicit 'use this when you need to find or list parties in the directory' would solidify the score.

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