get_coverage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the tool returns coverage metadata (periods, counts, sources, endpoint list), which implies a read-only, informational operation. It doesn't explicitly state side effects or auth requirements, but for a metadata discovery tool those are largely unnecessary; the disclosure is solid.

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 with zero wasted words. The first sentence enumerates the returned contents, the second provides actionable usage guidance, with the key instruction ('Call this first') placed at the end of the sentence in a natural, prominent position.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema metadata tool, the description is fully complete: it tells exactly what information will be returned and when to call. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly; no missing information would cause misinvocation.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details that don't exist. No additional semantic help is needed.

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 clearly defines the tool's purpose as returning coverage metadata for the US-Mexico remittances dataset, specifying exact contents (time range, counts, sources, endpoints). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the meta-level overview endpoint, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this first to learn which periods can be requested.' This unambiguously instructs the agent to invoke this tool before other data-retrieval siblings, making the usage context clear with minimal effort.

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