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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is low; the description still adds real value by disclosing the per-rule payload shape (trigger, days, required action, source and section) and the caveat that unreviewed rules carry a notice. The 'not legal advice' framing is a genuine behavioral disclosure an agent needs when relaying output.

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?

Resource and scope are front-loaded in the opening clause, and the trailing disclaimers are short. The middle enumeration is dense but earns its place because no output schema exists to convey what fields come back.

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 a single optional parameter, the description carries the return-shape burden itself and does so by listing the returned fields and the source/section provenance. Missing only guidance on how to treat the 'not yet reviewed' notice in practice and no explicit alternative-tool routing.

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% and the single jurisdiction parameter is already documented with its three allowed values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description repeats the same three jurisdiction codes but adds nothing about the default behavior (omitting to get all three) or format handling, so it stays at 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?

Names the exact resource (statutory rental deadline rules ONZIP tracks) and enumerates the concrete rule families covered — condition reports, deposit returns, lease copies, deposit interest — plus the jurisdictions CA-BC, CA-AB and CA-ON. This is far more specific than the sibling names like onzip_list_services and lets an agent decide relevance without opening the schema.

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 frames the tool as reference material ('Reference information, not legal advice: follow sourceUrl') which implies a lookup use case, but it never says when to call this versus onzip_list_services or what questions it answers well. Usage is inferable from the content list rather than stated.

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