onboarding_get_wo_execute_plan_by_id

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 elsewhere. The description adds almost nothing beyond a mild scope note ('current organization'); it says nothing about what an execution object contains, error behavior for a bad id, or auth requirements.

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 is stated twice verbatim followed by a raw endpoint path; the duplication wastes tokens without adding information, and the only marginally useful content (the org scope) is buried in the repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what a 'plan execution' response looks like (status, steps, timestamps), but it does not. Combined with the missing pointer to the sibling list tool and the vague 'selected' qualifier, an agent cannot confidently distinguish or interpret this call.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it at 100% coverage ('The id of the plan (path)'). The description contributes nothing additional about the id's format or where to obtain it, so the baseline 3 for fully-covered schema 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 names a verb (get) and a resource (onboarding plan execution), and the endpoint path hints at a by-id fetch, so the basic purpose is discernible. But it is essentially a restatement of the tool name with a vague qualifier ('selected'), and it offers no differentiation from the closely related sibling onboarding_get_wo_execute_plan (the list variant) or onboarding_get_plan.

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 statement of when to use this by-id fetch versus the sibling onboarding_get_wo_execute_plan list call, nor any prerequisite such as needing an id obtained elsewhere. The 'selected ... in the current organization' phrasing is scope, not usage guidance.

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