request_local_coverage

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

The description states 'requesting coverage' and 'remember' which imply a write operation, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true (no state change) and idempotentHint=true (read-only). This is a clear contradiction, undermining trust. The descriptions of 'FREE live backend call' add no behavioral clarity beyond the annotations. Score is 1 due to the contradiction.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the purpose and usage guidance. The word 'FREE' is slightly redundant but does not significantly detract. It earns high marks for economy, though the single structure could be more formal.

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 the tool has 14 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to explain what the request returns, which parameters are necessary for common use cases, or how the backend processes it. Annotations provide some context but the description adds little beyond purpose and use cases.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only lists examples of what to request in general terms but does not define any of the 14 parameters (e.g., town, location, signal_types). This provides negligible help in understanding how to fill the schema, resulting in a very low score.

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 explicitly states the verb (requesting coverage) and the resources (town, neighborhood, local ritual, etc.), making the purpose clear. It is distinctly different from sibling tools like plan_flight_route or convert_currency, which are travel planning focused. The informal tone does not obscure the function.

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 provides specific scenarios (local vibe, freebie list, etc.) indicating when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternative tools. The sibling tools are quite different, so confusion is unlikely, but the lack of explicit exclusions drops the score from 5.

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