plan_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the one trait annotations cannot convey - that the output is a multi-tool execution plan - but says nothing about what the plan contains or how it should be consumed.

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 with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a planning tool whose output type needs framing.

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 not be explained, and parameters are fully documented. However, for a tool whose job is generating an executable multi-tool plan, the description never conveys what a 'plan' is or how it should be used, leaving the workflow context thin.

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 100%, with the schema enumerating category values and explaining the inputs substitution dict, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'query category' wording maps to the category parameter but adds no format or semantic detail 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?

States a specific verb (build) and resource (multi-tool execution plan) scoped to a query category, so an agent can distinguish it from list_plan_categories or recommend_tools. The notion of a 'query category' is only clarified by the schema's enum, not the description.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as recommend_tools or list_plan_categories, which an agent would need to decide between. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'for a query category'.

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