plan_web_search_fallback

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions not using live search but fails to disclose what 'corpus misses' means, what the plan contains, or any side effects (e.g., data retrieval, state changes). The lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence of 12 words, making it concise but too terse. Important details (parameters, behavior) are missing, so it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is inadequate. It does not explain parameter semantics, the structure of the return plan, or the 'fallback' trigger, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, so the agent must guess the purpose of 'reason' and 'jurisdiction' and how they affect the plan.

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 the tool returns a fallback plan for corpus misses without using live search. The verb 'return' and resource 'official-source fallback plan' are specific, and the scope (corpus misses, no live search) distinguishes it from sibling search tools like 'search_law'.

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 usage for corpus misses when live search is inappropriate, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. Among siblings, search_law and get_article are likely alternatives, but no guidance is given.

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