plan_inbox

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full disclosure burden. It does declare non-mutation ('without writing anything') and enumerates return categories, but says nothing about cost, volume, or latency even though 'read everything in the inbox' implies a potentially large scan, and nothing about permissions needed to read the inbox.

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?

One front-loaded sentence plus a colon-delimited enumeration: the action and the read-only guarantee come first, and the detail list follows. It is dense but each listed category corresponds to a downstream tool, so little is wasted.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description must describe the result, and it does so via the enumerated plan categories, which is adequate. Remaining gaps are what the 'checks' resolution means and how to tell which items are safe to file automatically.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly adds no parameter noise.

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 verb and resource ('Read everything in the inbox and return the plan') plus the key constraint 'without writing anything', and enumerates the returned categories (expense rows, sales, documents to read, copies, non-invoices, e-Fatura exports). It never names the closest sibling (scan_inbox) to say how it differs, so it falls short of a 5.

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 routing is clear: expense rows are 'ready for add_expense' (with file names for file_document), sales are 'ready for add_income'. This makes it plainly the pre-flight planning step before those mutation tools. However, it never explicitly says when not to use it, nor contrasts it with scan_inbox or extract.

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