get_coverage

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that rows are returned newest-first and that a totals object is included with specific counts and coverage percent. It also repeats the read-only nature, which is consistent with the annotations and reinforces safety.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence contributes useful information about scope, filters, result ordering, totals, and safety. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple read-only reporting tool with fully documented parameters and an output schema present, the description covers what the tool does, how results are ordered, what totals are returned, and its read-only behavior. An agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description mostly restates the date_from/date_to filtering semantics and does not add substantial detail about the limit parameter. This meets the baseline but adds little beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'report scrape coverage per monthly chunk, with totals.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools like get_statistics or count_filings, which relate to different report types. The scope is precise and actionable.

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 phrase 'Use this to report scrape coverage per monthly chunk' gives an explicit intended use case. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name any alternative tools, leaving some differentiation to inference from the sibling list.

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