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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that rows preserve 'lifecycle state and uncertainty' and that notices don't prove outcomes - valuable semantic caveats. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens with large result sets; 'governed' hints at curation but is vague.

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 sentences, zero filler. The first sentence states the core function, the second delivers meaningful interpretive guidance. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple paginated list tool with no output schema and fully-documented params. The description covers purpose, scope, and important data-semantics caveats. Minor gap: 'governed' is undefined and could benefit from clarification about what governance means operationally, but for a list tool the coverage is largely sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, with both limit and offset already described ('Page size', 'Zero-based page offset'). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers both parameters.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('List...economic signals') with a jurisdictional scope ('Saskatchewan') and source qualifier ('official structured sources'). Distinguishes itself from siblings like get_economic_signal (singular fetch) by being the plural listing operation, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 on when to use this vs alternatives. The description does add an interpretive caveat about notices not proving outcomes, which implies caution around data semantics, but there's no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like get_emerging_signals or get_economic_signal.

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