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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the tool's safety profile. The description adds context about the data source but does not disclose output format, ordering, or any pagination or error behavior. There is no contradiction with 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?

The description is one focused sentence with no filler. The core result type, 'canonical URLs,' is front-loaded, and the source qualifier directly follows it. Every phrase contributes useful context.

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 zero-parameter, read-only retrieval tool with strong annotations, the description is largely complete: it states both the result type and the source scope. Since there is no output schema, a bit more specificity about what counts as a canonical source or the expected URL format would improve completeness, but this is not a significant gap.

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 is empty with 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4 because parameter semantics impose no additional burden on the description.

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 clearly identifies the operation: retrieving canonical URLs from CHRP's public authority graph and reference documents. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_science or get_states, which target different resources. The resource scope is specific enough, though the term 'public authority graph' is left somewhat unexplained.

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 implies this tool should be used when an agent needs canonical source URLs from CHRP, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. Since the tool has no parameters and the siblings are quite distinct, the implied usage is acceptable but not strongly instructive.

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