lt_coverage

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and open-world; the description adds meaningful context about sourcing, known gaps, and the fact that empty results may reflect connector gaps rather than the law. No contradiction with 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?

Three compact blocks: what it does, when to call it, and what it returns. Every sentence earns its place and the usage trigger is front-loaded before the return format.

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 tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, gap behavior, fallback, and return shape. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 is fully covered, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description's references to families, as-of note, and gaps are return-value details, not parameters. Baseline 4 for a 0-param tool.

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: declare what the connector covers, how it is sourced, and what it does not cover. It distinguishes itself from sibling search/retrieval tools by focusing on coverage gaps and fallbacks, not legal content.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call before telling a user the law 'does not contain' something and whenever a search comes back empty. It does not name sibling alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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