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

With no annotations, the description fully explains output structure, execution model (agent executes, no caching), concurrency (parallel_group), and a key requirement (browser). Minor omission: no explicit statement about side effects, but the tool appears read-only.

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 concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds critical value: output structure, execution model, concurrency, browser requirement, and workflow placement. No wasted words.

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 complexity, 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers key aspects: output format, execution model, concurrency hints, and a requirement. Minor gaps are possible in error handling but are acceptable for a planning 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 clearly states the verb ('Generate') and resource ('executable search plan'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the workflow position (after search/discover, before origingrid_execute_batch).

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 includes an explicit [ASRP] directive: 'Call AFTER search/discover. Pass the returned steps to origingrid_execute_batch for concurrent execution.' It also notes a prerequisite ('Requires browser for yellow-difficulty sources'), providing clear context for when to use the tool.

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