coverage_report

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

There are no annotations, and the description only mentions 'Compare' without disclosing side effects, prerequisites, or whether it affects data. It does not explain what 'loaded JSONL' means or whether the tool is read-only, so the agent is left guessing about behavioral implications.

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 a single, well-front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It immediately conveys the core purpose in a compact manner.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks parameter explanations, usage context, and behavioral details. For a tool with four opaque parameters and no annotations, this one-line description is insufficient for an agent to use it 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?

All four parameters (month, csv_path, max_index_rows, max_metadata_scan) are completely undocumented, and the description does not mention any of them. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to provide any parameter semantics, making it impossible to know how to set the parameters correctly.

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 states the tool compares CSV index DOIs to DOIs in loaded JSONL and identifies the output as a coverage gap / what to download next. The verb 'compare' and specific resource distinction make it easy to understand and differentiates it from sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like index_summary or corpus_status. The description implies a use case but does not explicitly state when it is appropriate or when to avoid it.

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