coverage_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only stats/aggregation operation but never confirms that, nor does it describe scope constraints, freshness, or the shape of results. 'Portable' is unexplained jargon rather than a behavioral trait.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool. It is slightly dense with undefined terms ('portable', 'coverage-wide') but wastes no space.

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 must convey what comes back, and it only gestures at 'quality totals' and 'country/subdivision rollups' without defining the metrics or structure. Combined with no differentiation from overlapping siblings, an agent lacks enough to call this correctly with confidence.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema-based baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify on the input side.

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 the subject matter (coverage-wide quality totals plus country/subdivision rollups) but uses no clear verb and leans on undefined jargon like 'portable' and 'the feeds this scorecard tracks'. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as national_stats, get_rollup, or coverage_for, so an agent cannot confidently pick it over those.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling tools that clearly overlap (national_stats, get_rollup, coverage_for). The agent is left to guess which stats tool to call.

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