Enrich plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs server-side web search/fetch, respects a scope boundary and search budget, and that 'skip:true yields an empty report.' This is useful context. However, it does not mention side effects on the plan, return format, or permissions. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and provides a key detail about the skip parameter without wasted words. Every phrase earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core function, constraints, and special skip behavior. It lacks details about the report's contents or whether the plan is modified, but these are not critical for basic usage. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the skip parameter ('skip:true yields an empty report'), which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, planId and maxSearches are not described; while their names are self-explanatory, the description does not clarify their exact semantics or constraints. The description only partially compensates for the lack of schema 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 tool's purpose: 'Research the plan's knowledge gaps with server-side web search/fetch.' This specifies the verb (research) and resource (plan's knowledge gaps), distinguishing it from sibling tools like define_scope or generate_deck. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 context by mentioning 'within the scope boundary and a search budget,' suggesting it should be used after scope definition and with limited searches. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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