jp_coverage

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context by warning that a missing result may be a connector gap rather than an absence in the law, and by summarizing the returned Coverage object. It does not contradict the annotations.

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: purpose first, then precise usage triggers, then a one-line return summary. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is repeated from the annotations or schema.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only metadata tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to invoke it, why it matters, and what to expect in the response. An agent has enough context to use it correctly alongside the sibling search tools.

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 schema fully covers this with an empty object, so the baseline is 4. No parameter-level detail is needed, and the description appropriately focuses on return semantics instead.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Declare what this connector covers, how it is sourced, and what it does NOT cover.' It clearly distinguishes this coverage/metadata tool from the sibling search and retrieval tools by focusing on connector gaps rather than legal text.

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 trigger conditions: call before telling a user the law 'does not contain' something, and whenever a search comes back empty. It also explains the reasoning and tells the agent that every gap carries a fallback, so the next step is clear.

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