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 adds useful context beyond the schema: it mentions that results are 'ordered by most recently added' and hints at a browsing use case. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by offset/resultCount but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with 12 parameters.

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 three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's function, providing usage context, and directing to a sibling tool. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 (12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the purpose, basic usage, and ordering, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or how to interpret the multiple date filters. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would be helpful for effective use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema: it mentions 'date filters' generally and implies 'most recently added' ordering related to offset. However, it doesn't explain the meaning or relationships between the multiple date parameters (published, modified, changed, decisionDate), which could confuse users, so it doesn't significantly enhance the schema's 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: 'List case law decisions from a specific court database.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('case law decisions'), and distinguishes it from sibling 'get_case_metadata' by noting that tool is for full details. However, it doesn't differentiate from other siblings like 'search' or 'get_case_citator', so it's not fully specific.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Useful for browsing recent decisions from a specific court' and explicitly names an alternative ('Use get_case_metadata to get full details on a specific case'). It implies usage with date filters but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare to all siblings like 'search', so it's not fully comprehensive.

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