Check a plan against the Radar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds real behavioral context: entries at Wait or Prepare are flagged because the plan may assume unsupported readiness, and untouched dimensions are listed, which tells the agent how to read the result rather than just what it contains.

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 sentences with no filler. The action and target come first, the return shape and the Wait/Prepare flagging follow, and every clause carries operational information rather than restating the title.

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 output schema exists, so the description did not need to spell out return values at all, yet it usefully characterizes the most decision-relevant part (flagged Wait/Prepare entries and untouched dimensions). Combined with 100% schema coverage and full annotation coverage, nothing essential is missing; only explicit alternative-selection guidance is absent.

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 100%, so text, limit and sector are already documented in the schema; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the sector lens or the limit cap, and its only parameter-adjacent signal is that the input is plan or document text.

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 verb (match) and a specific resource (a plan, roadmap, architecture, policy, business case or initiative list) checked against The Intelligence Radar. It also enumerates the returned content, which distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings such as search_radar, get_entry and get_dimension.

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 input side is clear enough to imply when the tool applies (any substantial document to be assessed against the Radar), but there is no explicit routing guidance. It never says when to prefer search_radar, get_dimension or show_radar instead, and names no prerequisites or exclusions.

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