List Statutes Coverage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context about the tool representing a coverage matrix rather than performing any mutation. However, it does not describe response shape beyond 'section counts,' which is minor since the tool is read-only and parameterless.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

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, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and when to invoke it. The coverage matrix and per-jurisdiction counts are enough for an agent to understand the response conceptually.

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 has 100% coverage with an empty properties object, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description reinforces that the tool needs no inputs to return the full coverage matrix.

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 lists a coverage matrix with every corpusType and per-jurisdiction section counts. This is a specific verb-resource pairing and distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_statute_divisions or list_boards.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool before answering a jurisdiction question to verify coverage, and to avoid searching a nonexistent corpus. This gives the agent clear contextual guidance and an implicit alternative action.

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