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. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a 'quick preview' with a 'max 5 results' limit and is 'faster than the full citator.' However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, which are important for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded and concise, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, limitations, and usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, limitations, and usage context well. However, it lacks details on output format or error cases, which could be helpful for an agent invoking the tool.

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 well. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'metadataType' options or 'caseId' format. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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: 'Quick preview of citation relationships (max 5 results).' It specifies the verb ('preview'), resource ('citation relationships'), and scope ('max 5 results'), and distinguishes it from its sibling 'get_case_citator' by noting it's faster but limited.

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 explicitly provides usage guidelines: 'Use this for a quick check on whether a case has been cited, then use get_case_citator for the complete list if needed.' It names the alternative tool and specifies when to use each, offering clear context for selection.

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