MAK Immigration Source Guide

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context: entries include official source, what is established, recheck date, and an explicit limitation. The disclaimer that this is not immigration advice helps set expectations beyond the schema.

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 short sentences front-load the main action, describe the return-entry fields, and add a one-line boundary disclaimer. Every sentence contributes and there is no filler.

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 simple read-only tool with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what will be returned and the nature of the data. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 enum parameter has a meaningful description ('Choose all current ledger entries or one bounded verification entry'). The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('dated MAK source-verification ledger snapshot'), and the content fields of each entry. It does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools like get_mak_topic_sources, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 clearly implies this is for source-verification lookups and explicitly excludes individualized immigration advice. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this over the sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the fit.

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?

The description adds strong behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explicitly enumerating what the tool does not do: collect case facts, assess eligibility, book consultations, initiate payment, or complete transactions. This gives the agent a clear side-effect profile and does not contradict 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 two sentences with no wasted words. The trigger and primary output are front-loaded, and the exclusion list is compact yet comprehensive.

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 simple single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description fully explains when to use the tool, what it returns, and what it avoids doing. The provided annotations and sibling list fill in the remaining context.

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 the single 'battle' parameter is fully described in the schema as the education topic. The description only echoes 'selected education topic' without adding further detail about enum values or behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the MAK contact page and the licensed consultant for the selected education topic. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling tools, which cover a change ledger and topic sources.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition: use when the user explicitly asks how to contact MAK for human review. It also lists exclusions such as not assessing eligibility or booking a consultation, though it does not name sibling tools as alternatives.

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 read-only and non-destructive behavior; the description adds context by saying the set is 'curated' and limited to 'already-published' references, and it disclaims individualized advice. This goes beyond the safety profile in annotations without contradicting it.

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 with the main action front-loaded and the disclaimer placed second. The first sentence is long and slightly redundant ('source set' appears twice), but every clause contributes useful information.

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 simple one-enum-parameter, read-only tool, the description explains the return contents in enough detail despite the lack of an output schema. It could be more complete by spelling out the four topic names in human-readable form, but the schema enum plus description are sufficient for correct invocation.

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 the single parameter already documents that it selects a supported topic. The description restates the 'four topics' idea but adds no detail about what each enum value means or how 'battle' maps to a topic, so it does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('curated source set') and defines scope as 'one of four MAK Canadian immigration education topics.' It enumerates the contents of the set, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling change-ledger and RCIC-contact tools.

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?

It provides a general usage frame ('general source navigation') and a clear exclusion ('not individualized immigration advice'), but it never names alternatives or states when to prefer it over get_mak_change_ledger or get_mak_rcic_contact. The when-not condition is helpful, but tool-selection guidance is left implicit.

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