us_coverage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds valuable context by explaining the 'open world' nuance and detailing the return structure (families, as-of note, non-empty list of gaps). It also reveals each gap carries a fallback, which is behavioral insight beyond 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 well-structured and economical. The first line states the core purpose, the following lines give precise invocation triggers, and the Returns clause summarizes the output structure. Every sentence earns its place without any 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the why, when, and what to expect, and even includes the critical gap/fallback behavior. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to use 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so by the established baseline, the description deserves a 4. Since there are no parameters to document, the description appropriately focuses on return semantics and usage context without unnecessary parameter detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Declare') and clearly defines the resource: what this connector covers, how it is sourced, and what it does NOT cover. It distinctly positions this tool against the sibling search/get tools by focusing on coverage and gaps, leaving no ambiguity about its unique role.

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?

Explicitly states when to call the tool: before telling a user the law 'does not contain' something, and whenever a search comes back empty. It explains the reasoning (absence may be a connector gap rather than a legal gap) and provides a crucial fallback instruction. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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