hr_coverage

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining the open-world behavior in operational terms: absence may indicate a connector gap, not a legal gap. It also discloses return value specifics, including families, as-of note, and a non-empty list of known gaps with fallbacks. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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. Each sentence earns its place: the first defines scope, the second gives the exact trigger conditions, and the third summarizes the return structure. No filler or 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, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is fully complete for an agent to select and call the tool correctly. It covers purpose, triggers, behavioral nuance, and expected return content.

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 there is no parameter documentation burden. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and return semantics rather than parameters.

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: 'Declare what this connector covers, how it is sourced, and what it does NOT cover.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling retrieval tools by framing it as the coverage/gap declaration tool rather than an act/text/issue 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?

Explicit usage guidance is given: 'Call this before telling a user that the law does not contain something, and whenever a search comes back empty.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke it and why, including the fallback behavior for gaps.

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