coverage-trigger

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the output type (aggregate counts, redacted sample) and constraints (no contact data), but does not explicitly state read-only nature, permissions, or rate limits. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core functionality and constraints efficiently. It avoids unnecessary words and earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing parameters).

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 has 2 parameters (0% schema coverage) and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains what the tool returns but does not specify parameter semantics, return format, or usage context relative to siblings. More detail is needed for a fully self-contained description.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'days' and 'state' parameters. The term 'window' in the description may relate to days but is not explicit. The description adds no semantic value to the parameters, making it difficult for an agent to know how to set them correctly.

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: providing aggregate counts of entities that newly needed coverage, with breakdowns by source, lead-value tier, and coverage line, plus a redacted sample. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like coverage_sources and coverage_trigger_feed by focusing on aggregate pulse rather than detailed sources or feeds.

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 for obtaining aggregated coverage insights without contact data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like coverage_sources or coverage_trigger_feed. There is no guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation (list) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as data freshness, pagination, or permissions. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part adds value.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides the key elements of the list. However, it could be improved by noting if the sources are static or updated, and what 'agent buyer' refers to in context.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by detailing what the output contains (sources, geographic coverage, agent buyer). This compensates well for the lack of parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource (public trigger-event sources). It also specifies the output includes geographic coverage and agent buyer recommendation, making the purpose distinct from sibling tools coverage_pulse and coverage_trigger_feed.

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 for discovering sources, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor mentions when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the process (trigger events, dedup, tiering) but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. Adequate but not explicit.

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 well-structured and efficient, with no wasted sentences. Slightly long but each sentence adds value, such as explaining dedup and tiering.

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 complex tool with 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers input and process well but lacks details about the return format (e.g., fields in each lead, pagination). Adequate for understanding purpose, but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-described. The description adds global context but little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns businesses needing commercial insurance from specific public trigger events (FMCSA, new entities). It explains normalization, deduplication, and tiering, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by targeting B2B agents sourcing fresh leads.

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 by 'B2B insurance & surety AGENTS' for fresh leads, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternative tools (coverage_pulse, coverage_sources) or when not to use it.

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