get_coverage

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only counting operation but does not disclose response shape, whether zero-count books appear, what counts as a prop, or any availability constraints. It adds little beyond the basic action.

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 fluff; the core question is front-loaded. It could be improved with a clearer verb or explicit output phrasing, but every word contributes meaning and the size is appropriate for a simple tool.

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 one-parameter count query, the description is close to adequate, but with no output schema it should specify the result shape and clarify what counts as a prop on the live board. It also does not mention that the sport value likely comes from list_sports, so an agent may need to inspect sibling tools to call this correctly.

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 describes only 'sport' as a required string with 0% schema description coverage, and the description merely says 'for a sport,' restating the property name. It does not explain valid sport identifiers or how to obtain them via list_sports. The description fails to compensate for the empty parameter documentation.

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 communicates a clear informational goal: count props per book for a sport on the live board. It is distinct from siblings like get_props or get_player_board, though it does not explicitly state that distinction. It lacks an imperative verb like 'returns' or 'counts', but the meaning is unambiguous.

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 guidance about when to use this tool instead of get_props, research_board, get_live_odds, or other siblings. The phrase 'live board' implies some context, but no exclusions or alternatives are provided. Given the large sibling set, this is a meaningful gap.

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