plan_sub_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., modifying the plan), dependencies (e.g., session_id requirements), or any state changes. The single sentence provides no insight into the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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, concise sentence with no fluff or redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is under-specified, so it doesn't earn a perfect score, but for conciseness alone it is efficient.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, 5 required) and no annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It omits critical details like how adding a sub-query affects the plan, required session context, and the role of the 'is_revision' flag. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the absent behavioral and usage context.

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% for 10 parameters, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain the purpose of fields like 'id', 'goal', 'boundary', or 'depends_on', leaving the agent to infer semantics solely from property names. This is a significant failure to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 action ('add one sub-query') and the resource ('to a search plan'), using a specific verb+resource structure. It distinguishes from sibling tools like plan_search_term and plan_tool_mapping by focusing on sub-query addition, though it doesn't elaborate on what a sub-query entails.

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 alternatives. The word 'Optionally' hints at it being non-mandatory, but there is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Sibling tools such as plan_search_term and plan_tool_mapping are not referenced for differentiation.

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