gtm_go_to_market_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions routing but does not specify side effects (e.g., whether the action creates or modifies data), authorization requirements, or output details, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise with a clear top-level statement and an Args section. However, the routing explanation could be streamlined, and the docstring-style formatting adds slight overhead.

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?

While the output schema exists (not shown), the description omits return value details. The routing and parameter info are sufficient for basic use, but the lack of outcome description reduces completeness for a domain agent action.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context: 'message' is described as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though further clarity on input structure would be helpful.

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 runs a specific GTM domain agent action 'go_to_market_plan', distinct from sibling tools like gtm_launch_coordination. It specifies the routing mechanism and parameters, 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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative GTM tools (e.g., gtm_competitive_launch_response). No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative suggestions are included, leaving the agent without decision support.

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