research_plan

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms no agents are spawned. It adds behavioral details: returns a phased blueprint with task decomposition and model assignments. There is no contradiction, and the description enriches the behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the key purpose, describe the output, and clarify a key limitation. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description provides sufficient context: it explains the nature of the output ('phased blueprint', 'task decomposition', 'model assignments') and its non-execution nature. The annotations (readOnly, openWorld) and parameter coverage complement this well, leaving no critical 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific information (e.g., details about 'topic', 'scope', 'available_agents') beyond what the schema provides. It adds value by describing the output, but not the parameters themselves.

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 it generates a multi-agent research orchestration plan and explicitly distinguishes by saying 'Does NOT spawn agents — provides the blueprint for the caller.' It uses specific verbs ('Generate', 'Returns') and resource ('multi-agent research orchestration plan', 'phased blueprint'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implicitly guides usage by stating it returns a blueprint rather than executing it. The 'Does NOT spawn agents' clause clarifies a key boundary. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide explicit when-to-use conditions, though the context of sibling tools (e.g., research_web, research_deep) makes the planning vs. execution distinction clear.

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