coverage_tutors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds zero behavioral context beyond the title, such as pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or how distance_km and covers_area are computed from postcode.

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 text is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A helpful description needs at least a verb and a resource phrase; 'Coverage Tutors' is merely a label. No sentence earns its place because there are effectively no contentful sentences.

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 input schema and annotations are relatively rich, but the free-text description leaves the central purpose unstated. An agent cannot reliably distinguish this tool from coverage_summary or coverage_gaps, which is a major gap for a 6-parameter tool. The output schema may explain return values, but it does not compensate for the missing purpose.

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%, with all six parameters documented in the input schema. Because the schema carries the full burden of parameter meaning, the baseline is 3 even though the tool description itself contributes no parameter information.

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 is only 'Coverage Tutors', which restates the tool's name/title and gives no verb or action. It does not say whether the tool lists, searches, computes, or manages tutors. The ambiguity is especially clear next to siblings like coverage_summary and coverage_gaps, which could also plausibly be described as 'coverage tutors'.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_tutors, coverage_summary, or coverage_gaps. The description neither states appropriate conditions nor rules out other tools. It provides no context at all, so an agent must guess from the name alone.

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