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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaning of the here/passed/left states, which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but says nothing about the volume of results returned or paging behavior beyond the schema.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the state/scope description is front-loaded before the step-id detail. Efficient, though the step-id sentence reads as a run-on that could be cleaner.

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 read-only list tool with a rich 6-parameter schema, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description plus schema give an agent enough to call it correctly. Return shape and paging details are the only meaningful omissions, and the schema covers paging.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters (limit, offset, search, journeyId, step). The description restates and slightly extends the step semantics ('from get_journey', 'entry, goal or end') and interprets the tab enum, but adds little beyond what the schema already provides.

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 conveys the resource (people at a journey step) and splits it into the three states here/passed/left, so an agent understands what is returned. However it never states an explicit verb and does not distinguish this from siblings like get_journey_run or list_journeys, so it stops short of full clarity.

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?

It tells the agent where the step id comes from ('a step id from get_journey'), which is helpful sourcing, but gives no when-to-use guidance and no contrast with alternative tools for inspecting journey activity. Usage must be inferred from the name.

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