plan_search_term

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals that calls accumulate data and that the first call must set an approach, which is useful. However, it does not mention critical behaviors like the effect of is_revision (replacing all terms) or what happens on subsequent calls, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and usage pattern. It uses two sentences with no filler. While it could be slightly more structured, it is appropriately concise for the information provided.

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 9 parameters (5 required) and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits crucial context about the planning workflow, how this tool relates to siblings like plan_sub_query, and what the tool returns. The agent is left to infer many operational details, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that 'approach' is required on the first call (the schema only has a default), and that 'data accumulates' across calls, which affects how 'term' and other parameters are used. This enhances understanding of the parameters' roles.

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 action ('Add one search term') and the resource ('search term'), with a phase context ('Phase 4'). It is specific and not a tautology. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling planning tools like plan_sub_query or plan_intent, 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?

The description provides concrete usage guidance: 'Call once per term; data accumulates' and 'First call must set approach'. This tells the agent when and how to call it. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, leaving some inference required about its role relative to other planning tools.

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