get_data_coverage

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It states the tool returns which dates have data for each type, indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, rate limits, or authorization requirements, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core functionality. Every word is necessary, and it avoids redundancy.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does and the output concept. Some minor gaps exist, such as not specifying the return format, but for this context it is sufficient.

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 input schema already describes the single parameter 'data_types' with 100% coverage. The description adds no further semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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's purpose: 'Get data coverage information - which dates have data for each type'. It specifies the verb 'get' and the resource 'data coverage information', and it is distinct from sibling tools like query_* tools which focus on specific data types.

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 use for checking data availability but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other query tools) or any prerequisites. Usage context is implied but not articulated.

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