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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the recipes are and how they are consumed, but does not disclose return format or other behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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 sentences with no waste: the first front-loads the catalog purpose and categories, and the second points directly to the relevant follow-up tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple, zero-parameter, read-only catalog, the description supplies enough context to select and use the tool, including categories and the recipe-to-draft handoff. It does not describe the return shape, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and lack of an output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is complete, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not introduce any misleading parameter implications.

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 identifies the resource as ready-made journey recipes and enumerates their business categories, making it distinguishable from create_journey_from_recipe and generic journey creation tools. It does not explicitly use the verb 'list', but the name and category framing make the purpose clear.

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 gives clear usage context by stating that create_journey_from_recipe turns a recipe into a draft, effectively routing the agent to the next step. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like generate_journey or list_journeys, but the intended workflow is clear.

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