es_coverage

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by explaining that empty searches may indicate connector gaps rather than legal absence, and that gaps include fallback pointers. This is useful interpretive behavior not otherwise stated.

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 front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second provides when-to-call guidance, third summarizes the return value. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 zero parameters and an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It covers the tool's purpose, invocation timing, gap semantics, fallback behavior, and high-level return structure, leaving no important decision context 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, so parameter semantics are not applicable; the score reflects the baseline for 0-parameter tools. The description sensibly focuses on the return content instead, mentioning families, an as-of note, and a non-empty list of gaps.

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 purpose: declare what the connector covers, how it is sourced, and what it does not cover. It is clearly distinguished from the get/search/browse sibling tools by being a coverage-metadata tool rather than a document retrieval tool.

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, actionable usage guidance: call this before telling a user the law 'does not contain' something, and whenever a search returns empty. It also explains the reasoning—absence may reflect a connector gap rather than the law—and notes that every gap carries a fallback.

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