Plan a ProAbono integration journey, step by step

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does: it declares the tool is purely informational ('It plans and executes nothing'), describes the return value as an ordered plan naming the generating tool and human BackOffice tasks, and even explains why it mirrors install_insite. No hidden side effects or misleading promises.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it defines the return value, lists the journeys, clarifies non-execution, distinguishes from install_insite, and gives explicit call conditions. The most important facts are front-loaded.

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 single-parameter planning tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what will be returned, what will not happen, when to use it, and how it relates to sibling tools. There is no important missing context that would prevent correct selection or 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?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage, with a well-documented enum for journey, so the baseline is 3. The description lists the five journey types but adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides. It does not need to compensate, because the schema already explains each enum value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns the ordered plan') and names the exact resource (a named ProAbono journey), listing the five journeys. It also distinguishes itself from code-generation siblings by stating 'It plans and executes nothing' and by naming the tool that generates each step.

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 states when to call it: when a developer asks what the steps are, what order they go in, or what they are in for, before code is generated. It also clarifies that it does not execute anything, and explains how it relates to install_insite for the In-Site installation journey.

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