get_coverage

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It does add a domain warning about preserving evidence dates, conditions, gaps, and warnings, and about missing context not establishing eligibility or waiver, but it remains vague about what the tool actually returns or how that preservation manifests.

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 short and front-loads 'Read-only get coverage', which is good. However, the remaining sentences are terse and cryptic, and the phrase 'Preserve evidence dates' is ambiguous rather than informative, so the brevity does not fully earn its place.

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-value detail is less necessary, but the description still leaves the core concept of 'coverage' undefined and completely omits the sole input parameter 'release'. For a tool that appears to relate to programmes and travel rules, this is not complete enough for reliable selection and invocation.

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 schema has one optional parameter, 'release', with zero description coverage. The description never mentions 'release' or explains its format, constraints, defaults, or how it affects the result, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance for the only input.

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 a specific verb and resource ('get coverage') and reinforces that it is read-only, but it never defines what 'coverage' means in this domain. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as get_programme or get_travel_rule, so an agent must infer the scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_programmes, get_programme, get_travel_rule, or get_source. The sentence about missing context not establishing eligibility or a travel waiver adds a caution but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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