onboarding_get_plan_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds only the 'current organization' scope, with no mention of not-found behavior or whether the id is a plan UUID vs another identifier.

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 same sentence appears twice with a trivial variation, then a raw REST path. Two-thirds of the text is redundant, and the useful scope detail ('current organization') is buried in the duplicate line.

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 one-parameter read with full schema coverage and rich annotations, this is borderline adequate: the agent knows what it fetches and how to identify the plan. It lacks any hint about the returned plan shape or error cases, but no output schema exists to cover that.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as a path parameter. The description only mirrors '{id}' from the URL template, adding no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource (get / onboarding plan) is clear, and the organization scope is stated. However, the description never distinguishes this from the sibling onboarding_get_plan (which presumably lists plans) beyond the literal name, and the second sentence mostly repeats the first.

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 guidance on when to use this versus onboarding_get_plan, onboarding_get_plan_by_id's other siblings, or what happens if the id is unknown/invalid. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.

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