br_coverage

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

Annotations already include readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context by warning that empty searches may reflect gap coverage rather than legal absence, and by promising a fallback for each gap. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey and aligns with them—no contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by targeted usage triggers, then the return summary. Every sentence earns its place; the Returns section is clearly separated and concise. No filler or repetition.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's purpose, invocation signals, and output expectations. It even provides the open-world caveat that is essential for correct interpretation of search results. Given it is a parameterless, read-only metadata tool, nothing material is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. Baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document and schema coverage is 100% by default.

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('Declare') and resource('what this connector covers...does NOT cover'), making it clearly distinct from the search and retrieval sibling tools. It immediately communicates this is a meta-tool for understanding connector scope, not for querying legal 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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: call before asserting something is absent from the law, and whenever a search returns empty. It also explains why (absence may be a connector gap) and what to expect from gaps (fallbacks). This fully equips an agent to decide when this tool is needed.

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