sg_coverage

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining the open-world behavior: an empty result may indicate a coverage gap, not a true absence in the law. It also discloses that every gap carries a fallback direction, and the return includes families, an as-of note, and a non-empty gap list.

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 well-structured: a clear one-line purpose, explicit usage guidance, and a concise return summary. Every sentence earns its place, and the key caveat about gaps is front-loaded.

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 parameterless tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, when to call it, and why the open-world caveat matters. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds useful return-format context instead, which is appropriate for a no-parameter 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 clearly states the tool's function: declare what the connector covers, how it is sourced, and what it does NOT cover. It differentiates itself from siblings like sg_list_acts and sg_get_full_text by being about coverage rather than content retrieval.

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-call guidance: before telling a user the law 'does not contain' something, and whenever a search returns empty, because absence may be a connector gap rather than a legal gap. This is highly actionable and leaves no ambiguity about when the tool is needed.

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