my_coverage

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: it explains that empty search results may indicate a coverage gap and that each gap includes a fallback direction. It also notes the return object has a 'non-empty list' of gaps, which is a behavioral guarantee not captured in 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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, the second gives concrete usage scenarios, and the third summarizes the return value. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool has no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description provides all necessary context for an agent to invoke it correctly. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns, making it complete for its simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% (trivially). Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to add anything beyond the schema here.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Declare what this connector covers, how it is sourced, and what it does NOT cover.' It specifies a concrete verb (declare), a resource (coverage), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on coverage metadata rather than retrieving specific acts or 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 provides explicit usage triggers: 'Call this before telling a user that the law does not contain something, and whenever a search comes back empty.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls slightly 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.