Search Statistics Canada data tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the tool's scope (search across all ~8,200 tables) and return behavior (product IDs for get_table_metadata). It does not mention nuances like result ordering or pagination, but for a read-only search tool this is sufficient.

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 sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second explains the return value and next step. It is front-loaded, specific, and contains zero wasted words.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it searches, what it returns (product IDs), and how to proceed (get_table_metadata). Minor gaps like result ordering or match criteria are not essential for usage. Overall complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, with both 'query' and 'limit' having clear descriptions including examples and bounds. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: keyword search across all ~8,200 Statistics Canada data tables, with topic examples. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly linking to get_table_metadata for further exploration, making it evident this is a discovery tool.

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 implies usage: first find table IDs via search, then use get_table_metadata. It provides context with examples (CPI, GDP, labour force) and a clear workflow reference. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, leaving the differentiation implicit.

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