Government Radar

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts those annotations don't carry: the 7-day recency window, newest-first ordering, and a maximum of 5 results. It does not explain what a release object contains, but that is a small residual gap.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource, then the recency/ordering/limit constraints, then the optional filters. No filler and every clause is load-bearing.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly: scope, limit, ordering, and filterability. The only shortfall is that it doesn't characterize what each returned release includes, which is minor given there is no output schema to rely on.

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% and both enums are fully enumerated with per-value documentation, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates that jurisdiction and topic are optional filters and adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond the schema baseline.

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 gives a specific verb (list newest releases), resource (Canadian government news releases), geographic scope, and a concrete recency cap ('last 7 days, newest first, up to 5'). It clearly implies the 'latest' slice of what search_releases covers, though it never names that sibling explicitly to sharpen the distinction.

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?

'Optionally filter by jurisdiction and topic' implies the intended use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-search_releases guidance and no stated exclusions. An agent must infer the division of labor from the name and the 7-day/5-result constraints.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful framing that these IDs are filter values for releases, but says nothing about return shape, ordering, or caching behavior beyond that.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no waste, front-loading the action and the returned resources immediately. Nothing needs trimming or reordering.

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 and no parameters, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does state that the tool yields jurisdiction and topic IDs usable for filtering. It falls just short of explaining the shape of the response (e.g., paired ids/names) or that both lists are returned together.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and schema coverage is inherently complete for an empty object.

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 gives a specific verb (Lists) and resource (jurisdiction ids and policy topic ids), plus the domain context (Government Radar filter values). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from latest_releases or search_releases.

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: by saying these IDs are what releases can be 'filtered by', an agent can infer this is a discovery/lookup step before calling search_releases. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives, and no note that it takes no arguments.

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

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: AND-matching semantics ('Every word must appear in the headline or summary'), the 7-day recency window, a hard cap of 5 results, and newest-first ordering. None of that is derivable from the annotations.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the search scope, then matching semantics, then result behavior. No filler 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully discloses result count and ordering, and the matching rules, which is enough to call the tool correctly. It does not describe returned fields or what an empty result looks like, a minor gap for a search 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real value for the query parameter by explaining that all words must match the headline or summary rather than being fuzzy/OR semantics. It says nothing extra about topic or jurisdiction beyond what the schema already documents.

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 (keyword search) and resource (Canadian government news releases) with a precise scope constraint (last 7 days). The 'search' framing inherently distinguishes it from the sibling latest_releases, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 implied by the scope ('keyword search ... last 7 days') but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or statement of when latest_releases would be the better choice. The only routing hint lives in the schema for the topic parameter, not in the description.

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