get_coverage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that matching is accent- and case-insensitive, that the response includes limits, deductibles, quotes, and page numbers, and that an empty list is not proof of absence. It could additionally state that the operation is read-only, but 'view' and 'get' strongly imply it.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence gives the essence, the second gives the usage preference, and the third gives critical behavioral semantics. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff.

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?

The description is fully adequate for this moderately complex tool: it states scope, content of the response, behavior on no matches, and which sibling to prefer. An output schema exists, so the description does not need to enumerate return fields.

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 schema provides no descriptions for any parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the key `topic` parameter with examples and matching behavior, and implicitly clarifies product-scoping params (country, insurer_slug, product_name). However, it does not explain optional parameters `edition` and `document_type` or the expected format of slugs.

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 states a specific verb ('get'/'view'), a specific resource (ONE product's coverages/exclusions), and a focused scope (relevant to a topic). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_product by saying 'Prefer this over get_product'.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool: 'when answering a specific guarantee question'. It also names the alternative (get_product) and explains why this tool is preferred, and even clarifies how to interpret an empty match list.

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