get_opening_plans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that matching is transposition-based and results are kept apart from statistics; it says nothing about prerequisites (e.g., whether an opening plan must be imported first), error behavior, or result scope.

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; the key discriminator (transposition-matched plans vs. game statistics) is stated immediately. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, which does not hurt conciseness.

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. But with no annotations, a 0%-covered required parameter, and no indication of prerequisites or how this differs from the many neighboring opening/analysis tools, the description is not complete enough to call the tool confidently.

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 single parameter 'fen' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate — yet it says nothing about the FEN format, whether a full or partial position is accepted, or how transposition matching uses it. The parameter's meaning is left entirely implicit.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (opening plans) and adds the qualifier 'transposition-matched,' which distinguishes the result set from generic opening data. It also implicitly separates itself from statistics-oriented siblings, though it does not name any of them.

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 phrase 'separately from practical game statistics' hints that this tool is the alternative to statistics tools, implying when to prefer it. However, no explicit when-to-use condition, prerequisites, or named alternative (e.g., get_opening_coverage, import_opening_statistics) is given.

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