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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Show' and 'would be used' make clear this is a non-executing, read-only planning operation. However, it does not disclose how the three sources are chosen, whether any external calls are made, or what the returned plan contains beyond the two named elements.

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 one concise sentence with the key output front-loaded ('three external sources and cleaned query'). It contains no filler, though the trailing 'that would be used' is slightly vague and could be more explicit.

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 one-parameter planning tool, the description gives the core return content, but without an output schema it omits useful context such as the format of the external sources, the selection rationale, and whether the tool performs any live lookup. This is serviceable but not complete enough for a 5.

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 only defines a 'query' string with no explanatory text, and the description references 'cleaned query,' implying the provided query is raw input that gets normalized. This adds some meaning, but the description does not explain what cleaning entails or the expected query format. Given the single obvious parameter, this is adequate but not fully compensatory.

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 ('Show') and a specific artifact ('the three external sources and cleaned query'), which clearly indicates this is a planning/preview tool rather than an executing search tool. It does not explicitly differentiate among siblings, but the focus on a plan separates it from search_sources, search_web, and fetch_page.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool versus its siblings, nor are any exclusions or alternatives mentioned. The phrase 'that would be used' implies a pre-search planning step, but this is left to inference rather than stated.

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