check_coverage_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description explicitly labels the operation as read-only, which is an important safety disclosure. It does not detail how 'present' is determined or what the exact output is, but the presence of an output schema reduces that burden.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears first, followed by the read-only note and parameter usage. Every sentence adds value, and the example period ranges are useful without adding clutter.

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 read-only check with one required and one optional parameter, the description gives enough information for basic invocation: purpose, inputs, and safety behavior. It lacks explicit guidance on choosing between sibling tools and a precise definition of 'folder span', but the output schema presumably covers return details.

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?

Since the schema provides 0% description coverage, the description compensates by naming both parameters: folder is the folder to inspect, and period_range is an optional range with useful examples like 'January 2024 to December 2025' and 'last 12 months'. It could add folder path format or the meaning of a null period_range, but the essential semantics are covered.

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 clear action: verify that every month in a folder's span is present, optionally restricted to a period range. This distinguishes it from list_dated_files_tool and check_set_coverage_tool by focusing on month-level coverage, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.

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 implies when to use the tool through its purpose and gives usage context for the optional period_range with concrete examples. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over check_staleness_tool or check_set_coverage_tool, nor does it mention any exclusions or preconditions.

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