Check Active Plans

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully explains why it is not a pure read: it expires plans past their expiry date, a side effect the annotations alone do not spell out. It also clarifies the scope of the write (only plans past expiry) and that matching is done against supplied context, though it does not state what happens to plans whose context fields are null.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the operational steps are front-loaded immediately after the one-line purpose statement.

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 the mutation semantics are covered. The remaining gap is that both parameters are optional yet the description never says how the tool behaves when context is omitted, which matters for a matching operation.

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% and both context parameters (context_atr_d1, context_regime) are documented in the schema with units and an enum-like value list. The description only refers generically to 'the provided context', adding no format or defaulting meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Check active trading plans') and then breaks the operation into its three concrete steps: query active prospective plans, expire stale ones, and match against context. It is clearly distinguishable from the read-only siblings like get_strategy_performance, though it never names an alternative tool directly.

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 by the described lifecycle (query, expire, match), which suggests this is a periodic maintenance/validation call, but there is no explicit statement of when to invoke it versus create_trading_plan or validate_strategy, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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