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 does well by explaining what the tool returns ('database IDs needed for other tools') and provides concrete examples of key databases. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions that would be helpful for a tool with 9 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 efficiently structured in two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains usage context and provides concrete examples. Every word serves a clear purpose in helping the agent understand when and how to use this tool.

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 discovery tool with no output schema, the description provides good context about what information is returned and how it's used downstream. The example database IDs are particularly helpful. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the return format (e.g., structure of the response, whether it's paginated).

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 9 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions filtering by date ranges implicitly through the example databases but doesn't explain how the date parameters work together. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('court and tribunal databases in Canada'), and distinguishes it from siblings by explaining its role in providing database IDs needed for other tools like browse and citator tools. It goes beyond a simple list function by explaining the downstream utility.

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 states when to use this tool ('to discover valid databaseId values for browse and citator tools') and provides clear alternatives by naming specific sibling tools (browse and citator tools). This gives the agent precise guidance on the tool's role in the workflow.

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