il_coverage

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses an important open-world behavior: an empty search result may indicate a connector gap rather than an absence in the law. It also reveals that every gap has a fallback, adding context about what the tool provides and how to proceed.

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 opens with the core purpose, then gives actionable usage guidance, then summarizes the return value. Every sentence adds meaningful 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, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: what the tool does, when to call it, what behavioral caveat to watch for, and what the response contains. No critical operational information 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 input schema is empty, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. Per baseline for no-parameter tools, the description is not required to compensate for schema gaps; the return-oriented description is sufficient.

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: declaring what the connector covers, how it is sourced, and what it does not cover. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling search/retrieval tools by framing it as a coverage metadata tool rather than a legal-content lookup.

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 triggers: call before asserting the law 'does not contain' something, and whenever a search comes back empty. It explains why this matters, but it does not name specific sibling alternatives or explicitly state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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