it_coverage

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes beyond this by explaining that empty results may indicate coverage gaps rather than absence in the law, and that each gap includes a fallback. It also discloses the output shape (Families, as-of note, known gaps), which adds practical behavior context not present in the annotations.

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 four sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, usage trigger, interpretation guidance, and output summary. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant or filler text. This is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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 tool's simplicity (zero parameters) and that the output schema exists, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, how to interpret results, and what it returns. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly and understand its output.

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, and the schema covers all (100% coverage vacuously). The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate since no parameter explanation is needed, and the description performs well otherwise by explaining the tool's role and output.

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 clear verb-resource pair ('Declare what this connector covers') and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by framing itself as the coverage oracle for the connector. It also gives concrete use cases (before claiming a law lacks content, on empty search results), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says when to call the tool ('Call this before telling a user that the law does not contain something, and whenever a search comes back empty') and explains why (absence may be a gap in the connector). It also notes the fallback mechanism, providing clear situational guidance without naming alternatives, which is sufficient given the tool's unique role.

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