list_statutes_coverage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pricing (free), authentication requirement (API key), rate limiting, and return content (legend and chunk counts). It does not explicitly state read-only, but 'Returns' and 'Self-describing' imply no side effects. Lacks details on potential errors or response size, but given zero parameters, this is adequate.

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 appropriately sized: two sentences cover purpose and usage, plus a concise note on cost. Information is front-loaded with the key purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, how to use it, and its operational constraints (free, rate-limited, API key). It is complete for the tool's simplicity and complexity.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description does not discuss parameters (none exist) but adds value by explaining how to interpret the returned `corpusType` values and how to use them in subsequent calls. This indirectly supports parameter understanding for related tools.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Returns a legend of every `corpusType` token... plus... ingested chunk counts'. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like `list_statutes_laws` or `list_statute_divisions` by focusing on the coverage matrix of queryable corpora.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it to learn exactly what is queryable where before calling /us/statutes/search'. It also explains the workflow of reading `corpora` keys and passing one as `corpusType`, including the need to pair with `state` for state-scoped corpora. This is actionable and clear.

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