Plan CSP customer onboarding

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context: "nothing is executed, no Partner Center credentials are used, and no network call is made — it is a lookup over the bundled scenario pack." This clarifies exactly what the tool does and does not do, going beyond the safety profile implied by annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently covers usage, alternatives, behavioral constraints, return structure, and follow-up tools. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler. The density is high but not overwhelming; it is appropriately sized for a workflow-planning tool.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the full picture: what it returns (goal, steps with key fields, notes), how to use the output (pass scenarioId to pc_generate_call or pc_get_scenario), and the planning-only constraint. The output schema handles detailed return structures, so the description need not restate them. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema fully covers the single optional customerId parameter with a detailed description of substitution behavior. The tool description itself does not mention this parameter or add any extra nuance beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description earns no credit for parameter enrichment.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: "Return the ordered CSP customer onboarding workflow" and lists the exact steps. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools pc_plan_gdap_onboarding and pc_plan_transfer, making its unique role clear. This is a model of purpose clarity.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context: "Use this to link an existing tenant to your CSP account before you can transact for them." It also names alternatives for other scenarios (admin access via pc_plan_gdap_onboarding, partner transfer via pc_plan_transfer). The "Planning only" note sets expectations that this is not for execution.

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