run_source_coverage_acceptance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose the verification logic and implies a read-only validation, which is helpful. However, it does not describe the return format, failure behavior, required state of the source packs, or whether the operation has any side effects.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and uses a colon to introduce a tight list of the three checks. Every word contributes meaning; there is no repetition of the tool name or filler content.

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 zero-parameter tool, the invocation shape is simple and the acceptance criteria are clearly defined. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits what the caller should expect as a result (pass/fail vs. detailed report) and does not explain how this tool relates to the large set of sibling acceptance tools.

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 input schema is empty and there are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. There are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify, so this dimension sits at the baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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's job with a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('the law corpus against the source packs'), then lists three concrete acceptance criteria: pack-referenced articles exist, every article has a source policy, and pending articles have no unverified text. This makes the tool's scope immediately understandable and distinguishes it from sibling acceptance tools like run_source_policy_acceptance.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling acceptance tools, such as run_source_policy_acceptance, run_source_adapter_acceptance, or run_packaging_acceptance. The description states what the tool checks but not when it should be chosen or what prerequisites or alternatives exist.

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