coverage_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Return', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or limitations. The behavior is essentially a simple retrieval, but this is not disclosed beyond the verb.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the action and specifies the output content. There is no unnecessary wording or repetition, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and no parameters, the description provides the essential context: it returns a coverage table of indexed parties with source notes. It mentions the specific count of 19 parties, which is helpful. The description is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect, though it could optionally clarify the read-only nature, which is covered by behavioral transparency.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered by default. The description correctly avoids adding parameter details since there are none, earning the baseline score for parameterless 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 specifies a clear action ('Return coverage table') and identifies the specific content (which of the 19 parties are indexed and source notes). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_parties (listing) and search_programmes (searching) by focusing on coverage status.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states what it does without any contextual triggers, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.

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