parlayapi_book_coverage

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

With no annotations for guidance, the behavior burden falls on the description. It does disclose that no API key is required and that the tool exposes a public coverage surface, which helps an agent understand it is an unauthenticated, likely read-only status endpoint. It does not describe what a covered vs. uncovered result looks like, whether there are rate limits, or how freshness/window values affect the outcome.

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 entire description is three concise sentences with no filler:' graph is also put in production. Every sentence contributes a distinct useful fact: what it returns, that no API key is required, and what the checks are.

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 description covers the tool's overall objective and removes one major concern by saying no API key is needed. But it still leaves the optional parameters unexplained and gives no guidance on how fresh results are or how the results relate to the surrounding florian capture tool family, which matters because no annotations exist to fill those gaps.

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 input schema has zero description coverage for its two parameters, and the tool description does not explain how include_warn or window_minutes influence results. The parameter names offer weak hints, but 'window_minutes' in particular lacks enough meaning without context about freshness windows or the exact computation gate.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('per-book coverage gates'), plus the public scope and the checks involved. It is clearly not a general odds- or pricing-related tool, so an agent can distinguish it from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast it with the closely related source_quality tool.

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 conveys when this is the right tool to inspect source health by defining the tool as the proof surface for freshness, normalization, database, REST-shape, and stream-shape checks. However, it does not describe when to prefer it over sibling tools like source_quality or when not to use it, leaving routing mostly implied rather than explicit.

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