get_data_coverage

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral context. It usefully discloses the status taxonomy and the guarantee '不得隱藏缺口' (must not hide gaps), which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not describe output shape, possible side effects, or any other operational behavior, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 a single compact sentence that includes the scope, the status categories, and a key behavioral guarantee. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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?

For a simple no-argument, no-output-schema tool, the description identifies scope and key statuses, which is largely sufficient. It could be more complete by explaining how to interpret or act on the coverage categories, but that is not essential for selecting the tool.

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 input schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to add. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, this is appropriately handled.

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 the tool returns a data coverage summary for Osaka Micro Nikkei factors, with specific status categories like LIVE_VERIFIED and CONTRACT_ONLY. This is a clear verb+resource pairing. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_data_source_status, so it falls short of 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool instead of related siblings like get_data_source_status, get_market_data, or health_check. There is no explicit context or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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