canlii-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions listing items and finding IDs, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of IDs vs. full records). For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides examples. It's front-loaded with the core function and avoids unnecessary details. However, the second sentence could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for clarity, and some redundancy exists in listing statutes.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output format, pagination, error handling, or how date parameters interact. While it covers the basic purpose and database examples, it lacks sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively without trial and error.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it provides examples of databaseId values ('ons', 'cas', 'onr') and key statutes, which helps clarify semantics for databaseId, but doesn't explain other parameters like date filters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'List all legislation items in a specific database' and 'Use to find legislation IDs for metadata lookup.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('legislation items'), and scope ('in a specific database'), distinguishing it from siblings like search or get_legislation_databases. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_legislation_regulation_metadata, which might overlap in purpose.

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 context by stating 'Use to find legislation IDs for metadata lookup' and provides examples of database IDs and key statutes, suggesting when to use it for initial discovery. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., vs. search for filtering by content or get_legislation_regulation_metadata for detailed info), leaving some ambiguity.

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