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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the returned payload sections (touchpoints, credit split, identity milestones, quality), which is meaningful since no output schema exists, but says nothing about errors, missing journeys, or how the model parameter changes output.

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 fragment is tight with no filler, but it is a noun-phrase list rather than a front-loaded statement of action, so terseness comes at the cost of a clear leading verb.

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 four parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the definition should at minimum explain the required identifiers and what the 8-valued model enum does. It only sketches the return shape, leaving invocation-critical parameter meaning undocumented.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never mentions workspace, journey, model, or window_days. The phrase 'model credit split' only loosely hints at the model enum (8 attribution models) without explaining that the choice of model governs the split.

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 fragment 'One order journey' names the resource and the word 'One' implies single-record retrieval as opposed to the sibling list tool, but there is no verb and no explicit statement that this fetches a journey by ID. An agent can guess the purpose but must infer the action.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of attribution_journeys_list as the alternative for enumerating journeys. The only implied routing cue is the singular 'One', which is weak.

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