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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substance beyond that: it discloses the return contents, that findings are 'bounded,' and that legal-conclusion requests are out of scope, which tells the agent how to frame the answer. It does not address freshness lag or how many entries 'all' yields.

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, no padding, with a clear use/don't-use split. The drawback is front-loading: the actual behavior ('It returns...') is buried at the end of a long comma-heavy clause listing covered topics, so the agent must read past the enumeration to learn what comes 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers intent, output contents, and limits, which is what an agent needs. The lone gap is that one enum option (super_visa_2026_income) has no corresponding usage trigger in prose, so the agent must rely on the schema for that path.

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 each enum member is individually explained in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description lists topics that map loosely onto several enum values but adds no selection logic beyond them, and it never mentions the 'super_visa_2026_income' option at all.

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 concrete verb-and-resource pair: it reports what Canadian immigration source MAK last verified or rechecked and 'returns official-source links, recheck dates, bounded findings, and limitations.' That is enough to distinguish it from guide-, contact-, or topic-oriented siblings, even though no sibling is named.

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 explicit trigger conditions ('when a user asks what Canadian immigration source MAK last verified or rechecked... or for a dated source check on...') plus an explicit exclusion ('Do not use it for individualized legal conclusions'). What is missing is a positive routing statement naming which tool to use instead for the excluded case.

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