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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that these are PDFs loaded from the IGA downloads page and lists valid kind categories, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, or whether year filtering changes the result set.

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 two tight sentences with the resource scope front-loaded and the kind values listed immediately after. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

This is a simple read-only listing tool with an output schema and strong annotations, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, with 0% schema descriptions, it should explain the 'year' filter and ideally distinguish this tool from search/get siblings; those gaps leave it only minimally complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It usefully enumerates the allowed kind values despite the schema lacking an enum, but it entirely omits the 'year' parameter, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 ('List') and resource ('Constitution, Non-code, full Acts, and archive-title PDFs'), with the source ('IGA downloads page'). It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like ic_search_companion or ic_get_companion, which keeps it from 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of ic_search_companion, ic_get_companion, or ic_browse. The sentence about kind values constrains the parameter but does not explain when or why to choose this listing operation.

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