plan_research

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that output is an ordered plan with free/country-specific sources prioritized — useful behavioral context — but does not clarify whether the tool merely plans or also executes searches, which is a meaningful distinction given sibling tools that do search.

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 dense sentence with no filler, and the core deliverable is front-loaded. The trailing parenthetical about prioritization earns its place by encoding ordering policy.

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-value explanation is not required, and annotations cover the read-only profile. However, with seven optional parameters at 14% coverage, the description leaves an agent unclear on how country, period, and the free-text question interact when constructing a plan.

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 14% and the description only accounts for two of seven parameters ('country' and 'period'). It says nothing about the semantically important 'question' parameter (the only schema-documented one), nor about lead_id, project, or lang, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 specific artifact ('a step-by-step research plan') and enumerates what it contains — records, guides, sources, in order — which is clearly distinct from sibling tools like find_sources or record_guide that perform only one of those steps. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the phrase 'free and country-specific first' signals the ordering policy and hints this is the entry-point planning tool, but the description never says when to call it instead of find_sources or record_guide. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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