check_active_plans

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: it expires plans past their expiry date. This goes beyond the basic annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) by clarifying that the tool mutates state. It also states it queries all active prospective plans, which adds scope. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is highly concise, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then provide necessary details. There is no filler or redundant phrasing, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The description covers the main functionality, side effects, and context requirements. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values. It could mention prerequisites or the matching logic in more depth, but overall it is sufficiently 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 coverage is 100% for both parameters (context_atr_d1, context_regime) with meaningful descriptions. The tool description only refers to 'provided context' without adding extra detail about the parameters, so it adds minimal value 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 clearly states a specific action: checking active trading plans against current market context, and explicitly mentions the expiration side-effect. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_trading_plan or evolution functions, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool (when reviewing active plans and cleaning up expired ones) but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of how it relates to other tools or any exclusions, so usage guidance remains implicit.

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