get_action_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses that the tool performs an HTTP readiness check to the site itself, that it makes no paid requests, and that it only uses data already in the database—otherwise it names a tool and estimate rather than inventing data. This goes well beyond a generic 'get plan' description and gives important operational expectations.

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 dense but not bloated: two long sentences pack the priority categories, per-item contents, data sources, and key constraints. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and every clause adds useful information. Slightly over-long for trivial reading, but justified for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the output structure well: each item has evidence, measurement date, instruction, verification method, and a deadline. It also covers data sources and the fallback behavior when data is missing. It would be more complete with explicit guidance on output JSON shape or when a fresh audit is triggered, but it is close to sufficient for safe selection.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not explain individual parameters but does enrich the meaning of the `sections` values (e.g., quick wins defined by Webmaster positions 4–15 and tracker 4–10). Parameters like `limit`, `fresh_audit`, and `max_pages` remain adequately covered by the schema alone.

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 that the tool outputs a prioritized site-editing plan with named categories (indexing, quick wins, snippet, cannibalization, AI search, competitor gaps, etc.), which is distinct from sibling tools that return raw positions, audits, or keyword metrics. The verb/resource relationship is clear: it returns an action plan.

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 context is implied rather than explicit: the description explains that the plan is built from an audit, readiness check, and existing database data, which suggests it is for synthesizing existing data into actionable tasks. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like audit_site, get_positions, or build_brief.

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