Grammar Coverage Report

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it cross-references two named data sources and produces a coverage/gap analysis. There is no hint of side effects or hidden mutation, and the read-only framing is consistent with the annotation.

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 entire description is one crisp sentence that front-loads the main verb and resource, then adds the purpose and role. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter, read-only audit tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the inputs conceptually, describes the cross-referencing operation, and specifies what the report reveals. The sibling context further supports that this is a distinct reporting tool, and nothing important appears missing for an agent to invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is nothing for the description to elaborate. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description does not need to compensate for undocumented fields, and it introduces no ambiguity about inputs.

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 uses a specific verb ('cross-references') with clear resources ('grammar_feature_map' and 'content_items.language_features') and states the exact purpose: showing which grammar features have coverage and which are gaps. It also identifies the tool's role as 'the core instructional design audit tool,' which distinguishes it from siblings like cl_get_grammar_map or cl_get_content.

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 phrase 'core instructional design audit tool' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when auditing grammar coverage across content. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops just short of a 5, but the intended usage is easily inferred.

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