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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the kinds of sources returned and by clarifying that it must not be used for eligibility or sufficiency determinations. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior, so it is not fully rich.

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 front-loaded with usage guidance and structured into use, returns, and do-not-use sections. However, the first sentence is a dense run-on that repeats all four enum categories already documented in the schema, adding redundancy rather than new value. It could be materially shorter without losing necessary 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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately describes the returned source categories: Government of Canada source, named MAK licensed expert, MAK educational resource, and configured authority, publication, secondary-coverage, and institutional-reference sources where available. The single required parameter is fully covered by the schema, and annotations cover safety. It lacks detail about output format or structure, but is largely complete for this tool.

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 battle enum is fully documented with each value's meaning. The description repeats the same four intent categories in prose but adds no syntax, format, default, or semantic nuance beyond what the schema already provides. This matches the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 specifies a clear verb and resource: it returns official-source navigation and verified educational sources for four named immigration domains. It distinguishes the tool from generic lookup tools by scoping it to MAK topic sources. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools get_mak_change_ledger and get_mak_rcic_contact, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance tied to user source-navigation requests for four workflows, and it includes a clear when-not clause: do not use it to decide eligibility, evidence sufficiency, or outcomes. It does not name alternative tools to use instead, so it misses the alternative-routing element needed for a 5.

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