onboarding_get_blueprint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the organization-scoping constraint; it says nothing about pagination defaults, result ordering, or what an empty result means, so it adds modest value beyond the structured data.

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 first two sentences are near-verbatim duplicates, and the GET path restates what the annotation title already contains. The single useful fact — that results are scoped to the current organization — is buried mid-way in redundant text rather than 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 read-only collection query with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It nonetheless omits return-shape basics (whether it returns an array, whether paging is needed, and how tenantLinks affects scope), which an agent invoking it blind would want.

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 100%, so all five parameters (limit, expand, filter, select, tenantLinks) are already documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional meaning about how filter syntax or expand semantics are used here, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 and resource ('Query for onboarding blueprints') and scopes it to the current organization, so the action is clear. It does not, however, distinguish this collection query from the sibling onboarding_get_blueprint_by_id, leaving the agent to infer that this one lists rather than fetches a single record.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative (onboarding_get_blueprint_by_id) or the related write tool onboarding_post_blueprint. Usage is only implied by the word 'Query'.

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