search_canvas_tools

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent already knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful scope information by clarifying that the search covers both registered MCP tools and the TypeScript code-execution API, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or other behavioral details. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loads the action and resource, provides helpful parenthetical examples, and then clarifies the important second search category. Every part earns its place, with no 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 tool with two optional parameters, full schema description coverage, and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is largely sufficient: it names the target, the two categories searched, and concrete examples. It does not explicitly describe the output shape, but the detail_level enum already communicates the names/signatures/full variants, so the missing return-format details are not critical.

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 already documents both parameters fully: query has a default and explanation ('empty = all'), and detail_level has an enum with per-value descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the general keyword-search concept, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('available Canvas tools'), and it goes further by explicitly defining the scope as both registered MCP tools and the TypeScript code-execution API. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which operate on courses, assignments, discussions, and similar domain objects rather than on the tool catalog itself.

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 establishes clear context: this is the discovery/search tool for finding available tools by keyword, with concrete examples and a note that it also covers the TypeScript API. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but no sibling tool offers a comparable search capability, so the intended use is well implied.

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