get_coverage_topic

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the tool returns full detail and lists, error marker for unknown IDs, and states 'Local, free, no engine run' indicating low cost and non-destructive nature. Does not detail exact return structure but sufficient for agent to understand 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?

Three concise sentences with front-loaded purpose, no redundant words. Each sentence adds essential information: what it returns, when to use, and error behavior.

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?

Fully adequate for a simple one-parameter tool with full schema coverage. Covers return content, usage examples, error handling, and cost characteristics. No output schema needed given clarity of description.

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 already describes the 'topic' parameter (100% coverage). Description adds value by listing example IDs and source (list_coverage_topics), and explains error behavior for unknown topics, providing beyond-schema context for parameter usage.

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 detailed supported/unsupported feature lists for one coverage topic ID, using specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'coverage topic detail'. It distinguishes from sibling list_coverage_topics by emphasizing it retrieves details for a single topic.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Use when you are about to work in a feature area and need to know precisely which functions there are implemented vs skipped' with concrete examples (request.security, ta.*). Also describes error behavior for unknown IDs. No explicit when-not-to-use, but context is clear.

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