boutique_request_coverage

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explicitly stating 'DRAFT ONLY', 'performs no network call', and 'submits nothing'. It also explains the human-review workflow and that submission happens via a returned URL. This is critical behavioral context that aligns with and enriches the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The separate line 'DRAFT ONLY - this tool performs no network call and submits nothing.' is a clear, high-impact warning. The additional sentence about human review and the returned URL provides necessary workflow context without unnecessary fluff.

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 tool with 2 parameters (1 required) and no nested objects, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, limitations, and follow-up action. Since an output schema exists, there's no need to describe return values. The description is complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool and interpret its result, even with siblings present.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters ('what is missing...' and 'optional jurisdiction...'), so the schema coverage is 100%. The description itself does not add further parameter details, but it doesn't need to; the baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the heavy lifting and the description doesn't contradict or omit anything.

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 drafts a coverage-request issue for a gap in the Boutique catalog, using a specific verb ('draft') and resource ('coverage-request issue'). It also distinguishes itself from the read-only sibling tools by explicitly noting it performs no network call and only creates a draft for human submission.

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 usage when there is a gap in the catalog and clarifies the draft-only workflow, which tells the agent when to use this tool (for requesting new coverage) and what to expect (no actual submission). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tools are all read-only, so this tool stands out as the only one for creating a request.

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