create_shooting_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries a heavier burden. It discloses that it produces a Markdown document and that unknowns should remain explicit rather than being filled in. However, it does not disclose whether this is a safe/read-only operation, whether it mutates state, whether it persists/store the plan, or what the return format looks like (beyond 'Markdown'). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a moderate but incomplete disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, one stating the core transformation and one setting an input policy. Zero filler. However, given 9 parameters and zero annotation/schema coverage, the extreme terseness might sacrifice too much useful detail rather than being 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?

With 9 parameters, zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description must provide substantial context but delivers only two short sentences. It doesn't describe the structure of the generated Markdown plan, what sections are produced, how risks/packing fields factor in, or any interaction semantics between the summary fields. For an assembly tool of this complexity, this is incomplete.

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 carry the param-explanation burden. The description adds no parameter-specific information - it doesn't explain what title, date, locations, astronomical summaries, or itinerary should contain, nor how they interact. The 'pass only facts already gathered' guidance is generic and doesn't map to specific parameters. With 9 parameters and zero schema text, the description undercompensates.

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 ('Turn... into') and identifies the resource ('printable Markdown field plan'), clearly distinguishing this as the synthesis/final-output tool among siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for comparison, but the purpose of consolidating verified inputs into a plan is distinct from the data-gathering siblings.

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?

'Pass only facts already gathered' gives clear usage context - this is the final assembly step after verification, implying it should be used after data-gathering tools. 'Unknowns remain explicit' provides guidance on how to handle gaps. It lacks explicit named alternatives or when-not-to-use exclusions, but the input-gating instruction is clear contextual guidance.

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