plan_literature_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not run a live search, but it does not explain what it actually returns, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. For a planning tool, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that avoids waste. However, it is somewhat under-specified, and the lack of structure or elaboration makes it only minimally adequate. It earns a middle score for conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too thin to understand the tool's purpose fully. It doesn't explain what 'source routing' or 'ranking' mean, or how the query influences the plan. For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations, this is incomplete.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters (query, sort, profile). It does not add any meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent without guidance on how to populate or interpret these parameters.

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 uses the verb 'Plan' and clearly differentiates from a live search by saying 'without running a live search.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_literature. However, the phrase 'source routing and ranking' is somewhat vague and not fully explained, keeping it from 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 when a user wants to plan or preview rather than execute a live search. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the contrast with 'live search' gives clear context. There are no explicit exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient.

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