Plan an NCE purchase

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this with additional behavioral facts: '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 adds context beyond annotations (credential use, network call) and clearly states the planning-only nature, making behavior fully transparent.

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 a single dense sentence plus a follow-up sentence. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and every clause adds value: it lists workflow steps, distinguishes alternatives, clarifies planning-only scope, and describes return structure. While compact, the density makes it slightly less scannable than the ideal two-sentence structure, but there is no waste, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description specifies the return shape: 'Returns { goal, steps[] with order/scenarioId/method/path/url/authType/why/keyGotchas/docUrl, notes[] }.' It also covers integration with pc_generate_call, clarifies scope (no network/credentials), and names alternatives. For a planning tool with two optional params and full schema coverage, this is complete.

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 input schema documents both optional parameters (country and customerId) with 100% description coverage, including examples and substitution behavior. The description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond referencing 'resolved URL' and placeholders, so it does not improve on the schema. 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Return the ordered end-to-end New Commerce purchase workflow' and enumerates the steps (find product, get SKU availability, build cart, check out, resolve subscriptions). It also distinguishes from siblings by naming pc_plan_transfer and pc_plan_csp_onboarding with their respective use cases, making the purpose 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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this to buy new subscriptions for a customer.' Alternatives are clearly named: 'To move existing subscriptions between partners use pc_plan_transfer, and to link the customer to your account first use pc_plan_csp_onboarding.' It also explains how to chain with pc_generate_call, giving complete when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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