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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral content beyond that: it explains that suggestions are pending-only until set_search_plan is called, that 'every round keeps' required criteria, and the counting rule that people without a location are never counted as in a required place.

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 content is delivered as one sprawling run-on sentence built from comma-separated noun phrases rather than front-loaded statements. It is dense with useful facts but poorly structured, so an agent must parse it rather than skim it; there is no lead sentence stating the operation.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return payload, and it does so thoroughly across plan content, versions, wider-search states, feedback and rounds. The only notable omission is any explanation of role_id semantics, which is minor for a one-parameter read tool.

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?

There is a single parameter, role_id, with 0% schema description coverage and no explanation in the description beyond the possessive phrase 'A role's search plan'. The meaning is inferable, but the description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance for it.

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 names a specific resource (a role's search plan) and enumerates its components — required places/languages/words, preferred skills, seed repos, versions, wider searches, feedback, rounds — so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It distinguishes itself from set_search_plan by noting suggestions are never applied without that tool. It lacks an explicit verb up front, but the resource is 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?

Usage is only implied: the mention that suggestions 'are never applied without set_search_plan' routes one specific follow-up action to the sibling, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus e.g. get_role, next_round, or get_shortlist. The agent must infer that this is the inspection tool for a role's configured search.

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