onboarding_get_wo_execute_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description adds only the organization scoping and the underlying GET path; it says nothing about pagination defaults, what 'expand' actually returns, or result ordering.

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 lines are a verbatim duplicate of the same sentence, which is pure waste, and the third line is a raw endpoint path. The content is short but poorly structured rather than genuinely concise, with no front-loaded differentiation.

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 list/query tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description should at least explain what a plan execution record is and how results are bounded or paged. Instead it repeats itself and defers entirely to the schema, leaving the agent guessing about result shape and relationship to the by_id sibling.

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% and all five parameters (limit, expand, filter, select, tenantLinks) are documented in the schema itself. The description contributes no additional meaning — it never mentions OData filter syntax, the meaning of tenantLinks, or the practical effect of expand — 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 description states a specific verb and resource ('Query for onboarding plan executions'), which is enough to know it is a read of plan executions. However, it gives no scope detail beyond 'current organization' and never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as onboarding_get_wo_execute_plan_by_id or onboarding_get_plan, so an agent cannot confidently choose between them from the description alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no mention of the by_id sibling or the POST counterpart. The only implied usage signal is 'in the current organization', which is a scope statement rather than selection guidance.

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