french_associations_build_search_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Build a plan' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as return format, side effects, required data, or limitations. This is minimal and does not inform the agent about what to expect or handle.

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 with no waste. It efficiently communicates the verb and resource, achieving conciseness without sacrificing core information.

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 simple (one parameter, no output schema) but the description is still insufficient. It does not explain what a 'search plan' consists of, how the output is delivered, or what the agent should do with it. Without domain context or sibling references, the agent may struggle to use 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains the parameter (association name or RNA id with an example). The description adds the phrase 'practical public-source search plan' but does not enrich the parameter's meaning. Baseline of 3 applies because schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('search plan') and mentions the target domain (French association). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_datasets or get_sources. A 5 would require an explicit contrast with alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the siblings. It does not state prerequisites, when this is appropriate (e.g., before fetching sources), or when to prefer another tool. Only an implied purpose exists, but no explicit context or exclusions.

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