get_coverage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation via 'Get' but does not disclose output format, potential computational cost, or any side effects. It also doesn't clarify whether the report is precomputed or generated on demand.

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 sentence with no filler, directly front-loaded with the action and resource. It is highly efficient and every word earns 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, but the description relies on domain jargon ('brief-vs-corpus coverage') without explaining what the report contains. It is minimally sufficient for invocation but leaves ambiguity about the output's meaning and format.

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 fully documents the only parameter ('site_id' with 'Site ID' description), so the description adds no extra meaning. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage, as the schema already provides sufficient parameter information.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a distinct resource ('brief-vs-corpus coverage report') scoped to a site. It clearly differentiates from the sibling 'get_coverage_explore' by focusing on the report itself rather than exploration.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_coverage_explore' or 'rag_stats'. It only states the action without context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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