Research Plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the tool produces a plan artifact rather than spawning agents, which is the single most important thing an agent must know before calling it. It does not cover whether the plan is persisted or re-generated on repeat calls, keeping it short of a 5.

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 short lines, no filler, and the core purpose plus the critical non-behavior are front-loaded. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description still summarizes the blueprint's shape. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, the definition is nearly self-sufficient; only the workflow relationship to the execute/document siblings is left implicit.

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% with all three parameters documented inline (scope enum, topic bounds, available_agents range). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Generate a multi-agent research orchestration plan') and clarifies the output shape (phased blueprint with task decomposition and model assignments). It does not name any sibling explicitly, but the negative clause 'Does NOT spawn agents' implicitly distinguishes it from the execution-oriented siblings like research_execute and research_deep.

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 'Does NOT spawn agents — provides the blueprint for the caller' line implies the planning-vs-executing split, which is useful routing context. However, it never states when to prefer this over research_execute, research_deep, or research_document, so the agent must infer the workflow ordering.

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