canlii-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the purpose and usage context well, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or pagination behavior for potentially large result sets. The statement 'Returns the full list' is helpful but insufficient for complete 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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific usage guidance for each metadataType, and ending with the return statement. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 complex tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage context but lacks information about return format, error handling, and behavioral constraints. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, more complete behavioral disclosure would be needed for a higher score.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds some semantic context by explaining the purpose of metadataType options, but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what's already documented in the comprehensive schema descriptions for all 12 parameters.

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 specific verb ('look up citation relationships') and resource ('for a case'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings by explaining its unique purpose for verifying if a case is still good law through citation analysis. It goes beyond just restating the name to explain the legal research context.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each metadataType option: 'citingCases' for checking if a case is still good law, 'citedCases' for seeing what authorities the case relied on, and 'citedLegislations' for statutes referenced. This gives clear context for selecting among the tool's own parameter options.

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