plan_research

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe/closed-world profile is covered. The description adds the ordering heuristic (free and country-specific sources first), which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about auth needs, limits, or what the plan actually looks like.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that packs purpose, contents, and ordering heuristic without waste. Slightly dense but every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with five optional parameters and 20% schema coverage, the description leaves parameter usage under-documented, making it only minimally complete.

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 only 20% (just the 'question' param), so the description must compensate. It vaguely maps 'country and period' to country/year_from/year_to, but says nothing about lang or question and gives no format or default semantics beyond the schema.

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 names a clear resource (a step-by-step research plan) and enumerates what it produces: which records exist, which guides to read, which sources to search, in order. This meaningfully distinguishes it from lookup siblings like find_sources or where_are_records, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it signals this is the tool for sequencing a research effort ('in order', 'free and country-specific first'). There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives, so the agent must infer the context.

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