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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description earns credit by adding what it actually returns — official-source links, recheck dates, bounded findings, and limitations — plus the 'bounded findings' caveat, which is real behavioral context beyond 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?

Front-loaded with the use trigger, followed by return values and a closing scope exclusion — three sentences with little waste. The middle sentence is long and lists all six topics, which slightly duplicates the enum but keeps the agent oriented.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so ('official-source links, recheck dates, bounded findings, and limitations'). Combined with the detailed enum, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though it could say more about the shape or volume of the ledger.

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 enum documents all six values in detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's recitation of the same topics reinforces but adds no syntax or new meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource ('read-only tool' returning MAK's official-source verification ledger) and enumerates the exact topic scope, so an agent knows what it does without opening the schema. It does not name or contrast with the siblings get_mak_rcic_contact or get_mak_topic_sources, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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...') and an explicit exclusion ('Do not use it for individualized legal conclusions'). No alternative tool is named for the excluded case, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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