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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: window_days is floored to a fixed ladder of values and time_zone returns the workspace zone, both of which affect result interpretation. Pagination behavior is not disclosed, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the constraints; no filler. The semicolon-compressed style borders on cryptic, but every clause carries information.

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?

For a 15-parameter tool with a nested campaign object, three enums, and no output schema, the description is too thin — it omits how the date parameters interact, how pagination works, and what the paged response contains. An agent could call it, but several parameters would be guessed.

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% across 15 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and only covers a handful (channels, campaign, row_key, order_source, window_days, time_zone). Critical ambiguities remain unexplained — notably how 'days' relates to 'from'/'to' and 'window_days', and whether 'page' or 'cursor' drives pagination.

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 opening clause names the resource (orders with their attributed journey) and the available filters, which is a clear, specific purpose. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling attribution_journeys_get, though the list/get naming pair makes the distinction reasonably inferable.

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?

Listing the filter dimensions ('filter by channel, campaign, explorer row or order source') implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The agent must infer the selection criteria itself.

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