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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely important behavioral fact beyond that: it returns a plan only and 'never claims collection occurred,' which prevents the agent from assuming data was gathered.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the plan-only constraint is front-loaded in the second sentence where an agent will see it before calling.

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?

The plan-only return behavior is well covered and no output schema exists to explain returns. However, with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations about parameter meaning, the definition leaves the agent guessing on inputs like period format and targetSize.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters. The enum values (youtube, web, legal, data_api, text_corpus) are self-describing and the description echoes them, but goal, query, period, and targetSize get no explanation — notably 'period' has no format guidance and targetSize has no unit/target semantics.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Build') plus an unambiguous resource ('reproducible collection plan') and enumerates the five supported source categories. Scope is clear enough to distinguish it from search_* or registry siblings, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

Implies when to use it (planning a collection effort across a specified source type) but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to siblings like search_datasets or search_literature. The agent must infer the boundary.

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