plan_execution

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states that the tool 'optionally define[s] execution order.' It does not explain side effects, what happens if the tool is not invoked, permission requirements, or how it interacts with other plan tools. This is far below the burden of disclosure for a tool with no 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?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters. The brevity is not appropriately sized; it sacrifices necessary detail for extreme brevity, making it more under-specification than efficient communication.

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 has 7 parameters, 4 required, no annotations, and an output schema, yet the description is just one vague sentence. It fails to explain the context of execution order, how to structure parallel groups or sequential steps, the meaning of estimated_rounds, or what the output represents. This is completely inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the description must explain parameter meanings, but it mentions none. It references 'execution order' which likely relates to 'sequential' and 'parallel_groups' parameters, but without any explanation, it adds no semantic value beyond the raw property names.

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 states a specific resource ('execution order for a search plan') and an action ('define'), but the verb 'define' is generic and the phrase lacks specificity about what defining execution order entails. It distinguishes from sibling planning tools by focusing on execution order, but does not clearly explain the tool's role relative to them.

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 only says 'Optionally define execution order,' which implies choice but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The optionality is the single weak usage signal, so the score is lower than a clear context would receive.

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