Get a Pine coverage topic

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/no-open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: unknown ids return an error marker listing valid ids, and the operation is local, free, and runs no engine. It does not describe result size or pagination, but for a small lookup that is a minor gap.

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?

Front-loads the return shape, then usage, then edge-case behavior, with no filler sentences. It is a dense single paragraph rather than being broken up, but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by spelling out exactly which arrays come back (supported, partial, via_transpiler, unsupported) and how errors surface. Combined with usage triggers and cost/runtime notes, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already carries examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces the parameter with its own example ids, which is useful but largely duplicative of the schema — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (returns) and resource (full detail plus supported/partial/via_transpiler/unsupported feature lists for ONE coverage topic id). It explicitly scopes to a single topic and names the sibling list_coverage_topics as the source of ids, so it is distinguishable from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when you are about to work in a feature area and need to know precisely which functions are implemented vs skipped') with concrete examples (request.security, ta.*, strategy risk knobs). It also routes the agent to list_coverage_topics for obtaining valid ids, covering the alternative path.

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