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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the returned payload shape - live definition vs unpublished draft, versions, per-step people, and 'problems that stop it going live' - which is content-level context the annotations cannot convey.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then itemizes contents; no filler, no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description does the work of summarizing the return payload, and it covers it well for a single-item read. Minor gaps remain: no mention of error/not-found behavior or what happens with a stale/deleted draft.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents itself as 'Journey id from list_journeys.' The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond the schema, so the 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 states a specific resource (one journey) and enumerates exactly what the agent gets back: live definition, draft, versions, people per step, and blockers. This is clear and specific, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with list_journeys or get_journey_run.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no alternative named (e.g., use list_journeys to find an id, use get_journey_run for execution data). Usage is only weakly implied by the singular 'One journey'.

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