pk_coverage

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond these: it explains that empty search results may reflect connector gaps, that gaps include fallback references, and that the returned Coverage has an as-of note and known gaps. This complements rather than repeats 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 but complete. It front-loads the core purpose, adds actionable usage guidance in the next block, and briefly describes the return structure. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 strong annotations and a defined output schema, this description is fully sufficient. It tells the agent when to call the tool, how to interpret the result, and what the returned Coverage object contains. Nothing else is needed for safe and correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 4. The description receives full credit for not needing to document parameters and for clarifying what the tool returns 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 uses a specific verb ('Declare') and resource ('what this connector covers') and clearly differentiates the tool as a coverage declaration rather than a search or retrieval operation. It explicitly states both what is covered, how it is sourced, and what is NOT covered, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance: call it before telling a user the law 'does not contain' something, and whenever a search comes back empty. It also explains the reasoning — absence may be a connector gap rather than a legal absence — and mentions the fallback for each gap, which is strong implementation guidance.

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