get_form_coverage

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and not-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by warning that coverage is never exhaustive of Sanskrit, i.e. results must not be treated as a complete inventory — a meaningful interpretation caveat. It does not, however, explain what triggers omissions or unparsed groups.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a semicolon-separated caveat; every clause carries information and there is no padding.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and with no parameters it need not document inputs. It covers the purpose and the key completeness caveat, leaving only the interpretation of 'omissions' vs 'unparsed groups' implicit.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. No parameter information is missing.

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 specific verb ('Report') and a specific resource ('loaded form sources, omissions and unparsed groups'), so an agent can tell this is a data-coverage/diagnostics tool rather than a lookup. It does not name or contrast itself with the lookup siblings (lookup_form, get_dhatu_forms, get_shabda_forms), which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says whether to call this to validate results, before bulk queries, or to diagnose missing forms. The closing caveat hints the output is partial but does not tell the agent what to do with that fact.

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