de_coverage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat those safety guarantees. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that the tool's purpose is to identify gaps in the connector itself and that each gap carries a fallback. It also details the return structure (families, as-of note, gaps). This enriches agent understanding but stops short of describing edge cases (e.g., what happens if no gaps exist), so a 4 is appropriate.

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 succinct, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then expected return. Every sentence serves a function: stating coverage, prescribing when to call, explaining the rationale, and outlining the return object. No fluff or redundancy. The structure is logical and efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema available), the description provides everything an agent needs: what the tool does, when to call it, why it matters (gap identification), and what to expect in the response. No missing critical information. The mention of fallbacks within gaps is a nice touch for decision-making.

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 the schema description coverage is 100% (empty object). With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description doesn't add parameter-specific details because there are none to document. It does explain the return semantics, which complements the output schema, but parameter semantics is not directly enhanced. The baseline holds.

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 a specific action ('Declare') on a specific resource ('what this connector covers, how it is sourced, and what it does NOT cover'). It also differentiates from sibling search/get tools by focusing on coverage metadata rather than data retrieval. The phrase 'the absence may be a gap in this connector' further clarifies its unique role.

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 this before telling a user that the law does not contain something, and whenever a search comes back empty.' It also explains the rationale and the fallback behavior, making the usage context unambiguous. No alternative tools are mentioned, but none are needed since this is a complementary metadata tool.

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