validate_pico_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds non-obvious behavior: malformed enum/source values fail rather than being silently replaced, and question_type is inferred by the service when omitted. It does not say what the returned pipeline looks like, but the strictness and inference notes are valuable.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the purpose sentence comes first, followed by two focused behavioral clarifications. No filler, though the second paragraph shifts abruptly to schema details that belong closer to the parameters.

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?

Adequate for the strictness behavior it chooses to highlight, but incomplete for a 13-parameter, no-required, no-output-schema tool: the central P/I/C/O vs *_query contract and the meaning of the returned 'runnable pipeline' are left to inference.

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 0% across 13 parameters, so the description carries the full burden yet only clarifies three (question_type, profile, sources). It never explains the difference between p/i/c/o free-text fields and the p_query/i_query/o_query variants, nor limit or description, leaving the most ambiguous pairing undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: validate agent-provided P/I/C/O and return a runnable PICO pipeline. An agent can tell it is a validation/production step rather than a search step, though it never names the siblings it is distinct from.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as generate_search_queries or analyze_search_query which occupy adjacent territory. Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'agent-provided P/I/C/O'.

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