source_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly states the tool returns a checklist of source types and does not perform web searches, fetch documents, or validate packs. This adequately discloses behavioral traits for a read-only, deterministic tool. No side effects are implied, and the description does not contradict any annotations (since none are provided).

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 three sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second provides use context, and the third clarifies boundaries and what it returns. It is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 tool has only one parameter (with enum), no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the return value ('checklist of must_check and optional source types') and what the tool does not do. The reference to list_source_categories in the input schema adds helpful cross-tool context. Overall, an agent can correctly select and invoke this tool based on the description.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it says 'Pass the source category slug as category' and gives examples, but the schema already has an enum and description with examples. The description does not provide new information about the parameter's format or constraints.

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 required source categories for a strategic-risk evidence pack. It further explains the use case (before collection or review) and provides domain examples (sanctions, elections, energy). The statement of what it does not do (search, fetch, validate) distinguishes it from other tools.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('before collection or review') and what it does not do, implicitly guiding when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools by name (except list_source_categories in the schema). The context from the description is sufficient for an agent to decide usage.

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