get_coverage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context about the nature of the data (metadata vs evidence) and the specific outputs (counts, check times, limitations), going beyond what annotations provide. This is a useful disclosure of behavioral scope.

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?

Two compact sentences, with the action verb and main outputs front-loaded. The cautionary note is included without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it an exemplary concise description.

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 tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is fully complete. It tells the agent what to expect (counts, check times, limitations) and warns about the metadata nature, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose or scope.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0-parameter tools, and the description correctly does not attempt to explain nonexistent parameters. No additional parameter information 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 states a specific verb (get) and resource (coverage metadata), listing concrete outputs: indexed episode counts, feed check times, and limitations. It also clarifies what it is not ('Metadata is not evidence'), distinguishing it from evidence-focused siblings like get_evidence and search_bike_evidence.

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 gives clear context: this tool provides coverage metadata, not evidence. The explicit 'Metadata is not evidence' serves as a when-not guidance, telling agents not to use this for evidence retrieval. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or conditions for switching, so it falls short of fully explicit usage guidelines.

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