get_coverage

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, and it does not say whether this is read-only, whether it is expensive/slow, whether it mutates run state, or whether it requires prior steps. The phrase 'identifying gaps and underexplored segments' hints at output content, but since an output schema exists that information is largely redundant.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and scope come first. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool, though it is arguably too terse given the missing usage and behavioral context.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a tool with zero annotations and zero schema coverage the description is too thin: no usage context, no behavioral traits, no run_id format. An agent would have to guess when this is the right call versus get_saturation.

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 coverage is 0% and the single run_id parameter has no description, so the description must compensate. It partially does by scoping the tool to 'a research run,' which maps to run_id, but gives no format, source, or validity guidance for the identifier.

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?

States a clear verb+resource: 'Run a rigorous coverage audit for a research run.' An agent immediately knows this tool produces a coverage analysis. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from the nearest sibling, get_saturation, which covers overlapping conceptual ground.

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 statement of when to run a coverage audit, what prerequisite state the run must be in, or how it differs from get_saturation or verify_claims. The agent must infer usage entirely from the one-line purpose.

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