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

No annotations, so the description bears the full burden. It does disclose cost ($0.015 per call via x402 USDC on Base, free with a Professional API key) and roughly what the response contains (union coverage, marginal gains, unreached areas), but says nothing about auth requirements beyond the key, rate limits, or error 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 purpose is front-loaded, but pricing/marketing copy ('the marginal number is the one worth knowing', the parenthetical about certification marginality) consumes space that would be better spent on input and output format. Every sentence is readable but not all of them earn their place.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry return-value and behavior detail. It gives one sentence on the response shape and covers pricing, but omits the string format of both inputs and any detail on how 'coverage' is represented, leaving an agent to guess at invocation specifics.

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 0% for both required parameters. The description maps the semantic roles ('frameworks an organisation already holds' and 'one it needs') onto holds/target, but with plural frameworks encoded as a single string it leaves the format (comma-separated names? IDs? codes?) entirely unspecified, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific computation: given the frameworks an organisation holds and the one it needs, it returns combined coverage, marginal additions, and gaps. The verb+resource is clear and it is distinguishable from sibling crosswalk/coverage tools, though it never names a sibling to differentiate against.

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?

Names two free alternatives (agent_crosswalk_pairs, agent_search_frameworks) and the condition (no payment or key), and explains the motivating scenario ('No organisation holds one certification'). There is still no guidance on when to prefer agent_coverage_report or agent_crosswalk_pair over this tool.

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