Plan GDAP onboarding

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

Beyond the annotations that already indicate a safe read-only operation, the description adds crucial context: 'Planning only: 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 fully discloses the tool's non-executing nature and resource usage, which is more informative than the annotations alone.

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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose: it states the function, lists the workflow steps, gives usage context, distinguishes from sibling tools, clarifies behavioral guarantees, defines the return structure, and directs next steps. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant or filler phrases.

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 complexity (exposing an ordered workflow with multiple steps) and the presence of an output schema and full annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, how to use it, what it returns, and how to proceed (pass scenarioId to pc_generate_call). It is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter (customerId) with a detailed description including substitution behavior and optionality. The tool description does not add new semantic meaning; it merely restates the placeholder substitution concept already in the schema. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Return the ordered GDAP onboarding workflow' and lists the specific steps involved. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by naming pc_plan_csp_onboarding as the alternative for the commercial relationship, making its scope unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you need granular delegated admin rights over a customer tenant.' It also gives a clear exclusion and alternative: 'for the commercial relationship (invitation + agreement) use pc_plan_csp_onboarding, which is the usual prerequisite.' This fully addresses tool selection.

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