canlii-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'List[s] all available legislation databases' and 'Returns database IDs,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't address permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error conditions. The mention of 'Key databases' provides useful context but doesn't fully compensate for missing behavioral details.

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: the first states the purpose and return value, the second provides key examples. It's front-loaded with essential information and avoids redundancy, though the list of database codes could be slightly verbose.

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 tool with 9 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It clarifies the tool's scope (Canada legislation databases) and lists key examples, but lacks details on output format, error handling, or how parameters interact—gaps that are notable given the parameter count and absence of annotations.

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%, providing detailed parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it doesn't explain how parameters like 'publishedBefore' or 'decisionDateAfter' affect the listing, nor does it clarify the relationship between date filters and database availability. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema.

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 all available legislation databases in Canada' with specific resource identification. It distinguishes the tool by specifying it returns database IDs for browsing statutes and regulations, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browse_legislation' or 'get_legislation_regulation_metadata' beyond the listing focus.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'browse_legislation' or 'get_legislation_regulation_metadata' that might overlap, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts where this listing operation is preferred over direct browsing or searching.

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