get_planning_benchmark

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the benchmark's design (answer keys by construction, stale figure enumeration, Stale Figure Rate metric) and the blind option's effect. However, it does not describe the return format, any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a read-only getter, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a usage note and external links. However, the trailing URLs ('Scoreboard + protocol', 'commercial eval packs') are not necessary for invoking the tool and could be considered extraneous. It is structured but not maximally concise.

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 tool is low-complexity (one optional boolean, no output schema, no annotations). The description explains what the benchmark contains and the blind option, but does not specify the output structure or what exactly the tool returns (e.g., JSON array of tasks, file link). The external links partially compensate for missing protocol details. Overall, adequate but with clear gaps.

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% for the single 'blind' parameter, which already states 'Omit answer keys.' The description adds context by linking the parameter to 'blind evaluation,' but this is a minor addition. Following the rubric, the baseline is 3 when the schema is fully descriptive, and the extra context does not elevate it further.

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 tool retrieves 'Planning Benchmark v2' comprising '50 free evaluation tasks for AI financial-advice systems' and details the content (answer keys, stale figures). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the content is distinctively different from sibling tools (household schemas, reference parameters), so differentiation is implicit.

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 implies usage for AI financial-advice evaluation through phrases like 'evaluation tasks' and 'blind evaluation', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions for choosing a sibling tool. The blind=true note gives conditional usage but not routing guidance.

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