gb_coverage

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it reveals that the connector may be incomplete ('the absence may be a gap in this connector rather than in the law') and promises a fallback location for each gap. It also discloses sourcing and non-coverage limits. The annotations already establish read-only and open-world behavior, and the description complements them with actionable caveats.

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: core action, call conditions, gap/fallback logic, and return summary. Every sentence carries distinct information and none is fluff. The 'does NOT cover' caveat is placed early where it matters most.

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?

With zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, how data is sourced, what limitations exist, and what to expect in the return (families, as-of note, known gaps). The fallback guidance completes the operational picture for an agent. 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 takes zero parameters, so there are no argument semantics to miscommunicate. Schema description coverage is 100% trivially, and the description makes clear no input is required. A baseline of 4 applies for 0-param tools.

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 opens with 'Declare what this connector covers, how it is sourced, and what it does NOT cover' – a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gb_search or gb_get_act. It also states the exact call contexts: before claiming a law lacks something or when a search returns empty. This is unambiguous.

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 explicitly states trigger conditions: 'Call this before telling a user that the law "does not contain" something, and whenever a search comes back empty.' This provides clear context for when to invoke it. It does not name explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the tool is a unique meta-tool among siblings, making that gap minor.

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