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.