fi_coverage

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining the open-world nature of the tool: an empty search result may indicate a connector gap, not legal absence. It also discloses the return shape, including families, an as-of note, and known gaps with fallbacks, which is genuinely useful for calibration.

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: it opens with the core purpose, then gives concrete usage triggers, then summarizes the return object. Every sentence adds either purpose, usage guidance, or behavioral context with no 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?

Given zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description is complete: it covers what the tool does, when to invoke it, why it matters for empty search results, and what the response contains. No critical calling context 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 an empty input schema, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately does not invent parameter details.

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. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like fi_list_acts and fi_get_act by focusing on coverage metadata rather than act listing or retrieval.

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?

Usage is explicit: call before telling a user the law does not contain something, and whenever a search comes back empty. It also explains that every gap carries a fallback, which tells the agent what to do next rather than leaving the decision implicit.

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