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

The description explicitly states 'absence of coverage means "not here", never "does not exist"', which is an open-world behavioral claim. This contradicts the annotation openWorldHint: false, which suggests the tool treats absence as authoritative non-existence. While the description otherwise adds useful context about gap types and request_hint, the annotation contradiction makes it misleading.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core purpose, then the primary use case, then the optional work behavior. Every sentence adds operational value, and the formatting with a short first sentence and a focused paragraph makes it easy for an agent to parse.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional parameters and has an output schema, so the description does not need to document return values. It covers when to call, how to interpret absence, the effect of the work parameter, and the categories of gaps. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the work and language parameters. The description adds meaning beyond that by explaining what happens when work is passed: the answer classifies the absence as metadata-only, language-not-held, or not-held, and carries requestable and request_hint. This helps the agent understand the parameter's effect on the response.

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 names a specific verb and resource: reporting per-source coverage and freshness of Lexiara's holdings. It immediately distinguishes the tool's use case from siblings by saying to call it first when unsure whether Lexiara holds the law.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to call: 'Call this first when unsure whether Lexiara holds the law you need.' It also explains the crucial semantic that absence of coverage means 'not here', never 'does not exist', which prevents misuse. It does not name specific sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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