explain_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses verbosity and raw market data but lacks information on side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or state changes. Some behavioral context is given, but not comprehensive.

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: first states purpose, second warns and offers alternative. Concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite the complex input schema with nested objects, the description provides no guidance on constructing the payload. It mentions output types but not structure. An output schema exists but is not described. The tool is incompletely documented for effective agent use.

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 sole parameter 'payload' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain the payload structure or how to construct it, leaving the agent to infer from complex nested $defs. This is insufficient for effective tool use.

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 tool runs the full planner and returns estimates, normalized market offers, and provider statuses. It distinguishes itself from siblings by warning of verbosity and directing to recommend_hardware for standard tasks.

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 description explicitly advises to use recommend_hardware for standard recommendation tasks and warns about the tool being extremely verbose, providing clear when-not-to-use guidance and an alternative.

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