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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the pricing model ('1 point per returned record'), which is real behavioral context beyond the schema, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, how results are paginated, or what format the records take.

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 tight sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded and the cost note appended. No waste, though the phrasing is slightly dense and 'Certificates and filings' could be unpacked.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (date, type, amendment details), and with no annotations it adds a cost disclosure. What remains missing is the read-only nature and pagination behavior, minor gaps for a straightforward lookup tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (company, max_items, start_page) are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'date, type and amendment details' describes returned fields rather than adding parameter meaning, 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?

States a specific verb+resource: certificates and filings of one federal corporation in the Corporations Canada registry, and even lists the data returned (date, type, amendment details). The scope phrase 'one federal corporation' implicitly distinguishes it from the country-level company search siblings, though it never names run_ca_companies or run_ca_companies_search directly.

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?

Usage is only implied: you would call this for a known corporation to pull its filings. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to an alternative such as run_ca_companies for general company data, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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