coverage_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is open-access ('No API key required') and implies real-time data ('Live'), but does not detail other behavioral traits like rate limits, data freshness, or whether it is read-only. The transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 exceptionally concise: one sentence listing key statistics and an access note. It is front-loaded with the purpose and wastes no words.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It specifies the types of data returned. However, it could mention if results are paginated or if there is a limit, but for a stats endpoint this is acceptable.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. It appropriately focuses on the output.

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 returns 'Live coverage stats' and enumerates specific statistics (total articles, breaking count, today's volume, active sources, countries, language counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_breaking (breaking news), get_feed (feed), list_sources (sources), and search_news (search). The verb is implicit but clear.

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 mentions 'No API key required,' which implies ease of use, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state when not to use it or provide context for decision-making. The guidance is minimal.

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