nl_coverage

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses important behavioral semantics: this tool is a safeguard against false negatives, may reveal connector gaps rather than legal absence, and returns a structured Coverage object with families, an as-of note, and fallback locations. This is substantive context not implied by 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides usage triggers, and ends with a clean return-value summary. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance, with no filler or 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers why to call it, when to call it, what it returns, and what business consequence follows from its results. 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, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output 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 states a precise purpose: 'Declare what this connector covers, how it is sourced, and what it does NOT cover.' This clearly identifies a distinct meta-tool that reports coverage rather than performing legal search or retrieval, differentiating it from siblings like nl_search and nl_get_act.

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 call conditions: use before telling a user the law 'does not contain' something, and whenever a search comes back empty. It also explains the rationale—absence may be a gap in the connector not the law—and notes that every gap points to a fallback source, giving the agent actionable guidance.

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