sk_coverage

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds critical behavioral context: empty search results may indicate a connector gap rather than absence in the law, and every gap includes a fallback for where to look instead. This directly helps an agent interpret results correctly and is valuable, non-obvious behavior.

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 and front-loaded: it states the core purpose first, then gives usage triggers, then summarizes the return value. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains when to call, what behavior to expect around gaps, what the response contains, and how to interpret empty search results. Nothing essential 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 are no parameter semantics to clarify. The schema coverage is complete and the description adds no unnecessary param information, matching the baseline 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 purpose: declaring what the connector covers and, crucially, what it does not cover. It differentiates itself from siblings like sk_get_act and sk_get_text by focusing on coverage metadata rather than legal 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-use instructions: call it before claiming the law 'does not contain' something and whenever a search returns empty. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with sibling tools, but the triggering conditions are unambiguous.

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