Recommend field verification plan

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it 'Ranks by consequence-weighted risk' and ties the plan to a limited field budget, which goes beyond the 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?

Three sentences cover purpose, prioritization rationale, and usage modes. Every sentence contributes information without redundancy or fluff.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, prioritization approach, invocation modes, and budget-cap intent. With an output schema present and annotations clarifying safety, nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), including the 'Omit for a portfolio-wide plan' behavior that the description repeats. No new parameter meaning is added, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly it 'Produce[s] a prioritised potholing plan' with explicit scope (which lines, order, why). Distinguishes from siblings by focusing on field verification planning rather than permit search or conflict finding.

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?

Explicitly describes two invocation modes: 'Call with a permit_id for one case, or with no arguments for a portfolio-wide plan.' However, it does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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