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 mentions that the URL field 'links directly to the full decision text on canlii.org' and instructs to 'always provide this to the user for verification,' which adds useful behavioral context about output handling. However, it doesn't disclose other important behavioral traits like error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when parameters are invalid.

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 structured and concise. The first sentence states the purpose and key metadata fields. The second sentence provides important behavioral guidance about the URL field. The third sentence gives usage context. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.

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 read-only metadata retrieval tool with 11 parameters (2 required) and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains what metadata is returned, emphasizes the URL field's importance, and provides usage sequencing. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the return format or error conditions.

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 11 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'case' and 'databaseId' implicitly but doesn't provide additional semantic context about the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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: 'Get detailed metadata for a specific case' followed by specific examples of what metadata is included (CanLII URL, citation, decision date, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying this is for case metadata retrieval rather than search, browsing, or other operations listed in sibling tools.

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: 'Use after finding a case via search or browse to get complete details before citing it.' This gives explicit guidance on the workflow sequence. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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