canlii-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns metadata including a CanLII URL and instructs to 'always provide this to the user,' adding behavioral context about output expectations. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only/destructive, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a key behavioral instruction. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates essential information. A 5 is reserved for exceptional cases with perfect structure, but this is very good.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and a key output behavior but lacks details on return values, error cases, or integration with siblings. With no output schema, it should ideally explain more about the metadata structure, but it doesn't, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or usage notes. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema handles the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

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 metadata for a specific statute or regulation including its CanLII URL, citation, and table of contents.' It specifies the resource (statute/regulation) and what metadata is retrieved. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_case_metadata' or 'get_legislation_databases', which is why it doesn't reach a perfect 5.

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 implies usage context by stating 'The URL links directly to the full legislation text on canlii.org — always provide this to the user,' suggesting this tool should be used when users need metadata with direct links. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'browse_legislation' or 'search', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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