mkt_goal_plan

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does useful work by explicitly declaring read-only behavior and no file writes or message sends — a meaningful boundary against the many mutation-oriented siblings. It also sketches what the plan contains. It stops short of covering idempotency, permissions, or error behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tightly packed sentence using arrow notation, with the read-only constraint front-loaded after the core purpose. Zero filler, though the compression leaves the parameter surface unexplained rather than deliberately brief.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with a nested object, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, one line is not enough. The agent knows what the tool produces but not how to populate five of its seven parameters.

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 0% across 7 parameters, including a nested 'facts' object, so the description must compensate. It only accounts for two inputs (goal, platforms); target, secondary, window_days, secondary_target, and the entire structure of 'facts' get no explanation anywhere.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'read-only goal plan' that takes a goal plus platforms and returns platform division of labor, first-two-week actions, milestones, and stop-loss lines. The input→output arrow makes the transformation concrete. It does not name a sibling to differentiate from (e.g. mkt_sprint_plan, mkt_channel_plan), so it falls short of a 5.

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 only implied: 'goal + platforms → plan' tells the agent what inputs trigger it, and 'read-only / does not write files / does not send messages' hints that side-effecting siblings like mkt_action or mkt_work_order are different. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no named alternative.

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