dk_coverage

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description adds important behavioral context: absence might be a connector gap rather than a gap in the law, and every known gap includes a fallback for where to look instead. This meaningfully informs the agent's interpretation of empty results.

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 compact and well-structured: it states the core purpose first, follows with concrete invocation conditions, and closes with the return type. Every sentence earns its place without repetition or filler.

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 metadata tool, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. The output schema handles the detailed return structure, and the annotations cover safety and idempotence, so nothing essential 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter semantics are not applicable.

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 and resource: it declares what the connector covers, how it is sourced, and what it does NOT cover. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dk_get_act and dk_get_text, which retrieve specific content rather than coverage metadata.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: call it before telling a user the law 'does not contain' something, and whenever a search returns empty. It does not explicitly name excluded scenarios or alternatives, but the conditions are clear and actionable.

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