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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds the returned boolean fields and filtering behavior, but it does not explain response structure, interpretation of the booleans, or deeper behavioral context.

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 very short and front-loads the coverage output before the optional filter. It is efficient, though the telegraphic phrasing makes it slightly less clear than it could be.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry more of the return-value burden. It names the boolean fields but does not explain their meaning, the overall response shape, or how coverage is determined, leaving gaps for interpretation.

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 q is already fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the same filter semantics without adding new parameter-level detail, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the resource and output shape: coverage booleans per agent class need, naming the specific fields returned. It is understandable but does not explicitly state a verb such as 'returns' or distinguish itself from the many sibling 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?

It explains only that q is an optional filter; there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like free, kit, or search. The agent must infer its role from the purpose alone.

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