lu_coverage

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds meaningful context beyond these hints by disclosing that an empty search may reflect a connector gap rather than an absence in the law, and that every gap carries a fallback. It also specifies the return shape: families, an as-of note, and a non-empty list of known gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by practical usage guidance and a brief return summary. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to call it, what it returns, and how to interpret the result, while the output schema covers detailed return fields.

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 is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies; the description appropriately does not introduce irrelevant parameter details.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: it declares what the connector covers, how coverage is sourced, and what it does not cover. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lu_get_act and lu_get_text, which retrieve legal content rather than coverage metadata.

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 and concrete when-to-use guidance: call it before claiming the law does not contain something, and whenever a search returns empty. It does not state when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but for a zero-parameter coverage tool with no overlapping siblings, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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