summarise_plan

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden, and it does well: it enumerates exactly what the output contains (family, leave per year, trips with cost and booking state, windows, open_windows, issues, deadlines) and adds the notable constraint 'Turn it into prose; don't recalculate any figure in it'. That last instruction is valuable behavioral guidance not captured anywhere else.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose, then a compact enumeration of output contents. Every sentence earns its place, though the output list is longish and could be tightened given an output schema exists.

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?

A read-only summarization tool with an output schema, so return values needn't be explained — yet the description spends most of its length detailing output contents, while leaving the required 'ledger' input unexplained. Adequate overall but incomplete on the input side.

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?

Two parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no explanation in the description. 'ledger' and 'today' are completely undocumented — the description never explains what 'ledger' is, what 'today' defaults to, or why 'today' matters. This is a significant gap for a nested-object required parameter.

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 purpose: 'The whole plan at a glance, for a brief to a partner or a quick recap', naming the scenario (briefing, recap). It's a summarization/aggregation tool distinct from siblings like get_year_budget or check_ledger, though it doesn't explicitly name what it differs from.

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?

Implies use for a brief or quick recap, giving context but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., why summarise_plan instead of calling get_year_budget + list_deadlines). Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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