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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and no destructive behavior, so there is no contradiction. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: no auth required, source/license, corpus size, and what fields are returned. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but those gaps are minor given the strong annotation coverage.

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?

Four sentences with clearly distinct jobs: scope, filters, return fields, downstream workflow, and licensing/auth. The purpose is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place with 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?

The tool has no required parameters and an output schema, and annotations cover safety and side effects. The description adds the remaining essential context: auth requirements, source/license, filter semantics, return fields, and downstream tool usage. An agent has everything needed to search and proceed correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates subject code examples and archived-status filtering that the schema already documents in detail, adding little new meaning. It does not need to compensate for schema gaps because every parameter is already explained.

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 opens with 'Search and discover Statistics Canada data tables', a specific verb plus resource, and enumerates the filters and return fields. It also distinguishes itself from downstream fetch tools by naming 'table_metadata' and 'table_data' as follow-ups, so an agent can tell search apart from data retrieval.

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 makes the search-first workflow explicit: 'Use the product_id from results to fetch full metadata (table_metadata) or time-series data (table_data).' This routes the agent to the correct sibling tools. It does not provide an explicit when-not condition or compare against statcan.series.info, so it stops short of a full 5.

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