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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: members are truncated to 50 per dimension, and no auth is required. It also identifies the data source and licence. It does not cover response-side limits like pagination or rate limits, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: scope, return contents, coordinate usage, 50-member truncation, product ID discovery, and auth/source. It is front-loaded with the core action and does not repeat the title or name.

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 single-parameter lookup with a full output schema and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is complete: it tells the agent what the tool returns, how to find the product ID, how to use the dimensions downstream, and the truncation caveat. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The schema already documents product_id with an 8-digit example and URL guidance, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description adds the concrete URL pattern with the '01' suffix, which is a small extra beyond the schema, but it is not a major compensation need.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve full metadata for a Statistics Canada table by its 8-digit product ID,' and enumerates the returned fields. It also differentiates itself from the sibling data tool by stating that the coordinate values in dimensions should be used to call table_data.

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 clear downstream guidance: 'Use coordinate values to call table_data,' which tells an agent what to do with the returned dimensions and when this metadata lookup is the right first step. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternative tools such as statcan.catalogue.search or statcan.series.info, so it stays at a 4 rather than a 5.

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