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

The annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds meaningful scope context by clarifying that this is coverage data rather than live health, but it does not describe authentication needs, rate limits, or exact return behavior.

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 two tight sentences with no wasted language. It front-loads the core operation and follows with an important scope clarification.

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 simple read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description gives a reasonable high-level picture of the returned coverage information. However, with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, it leaves the agent without guidance on the time window or operator-test inclusion.

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 has zero description coverage for both parameters, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'hours' and 'include_operator_tests' parameters. It does not mention either parameter or explain the default lookback window or what operator tests mean.

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 states a specific read operation over coverage-related data: configured feeds, published counts, observation times, delay, and retention limits. It clearly distinguishes coverage data from live service health, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling observation/search 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 phrase 'This is data coverage, not live service health' provides a useful exclusion, implying the tool should not be used for health checks. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_activity_summary or search_observations.

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