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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add operational context. It does: results are scoped to a 30-day metrics window (emails sent, open and click rates) and soft-deleted journeys are included but flagged as archived.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its returned fields, followed by the archived-state caveat. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and handles it well by naming the fields returned. It does not mention result limits, pagination, or ordering, which would matter for an unfiltered listing tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 — there is no parameter syntax the description could be expected to explain.

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 name/title supply the verb ('List') and the description defines the resource precisely, even clarifying the domain term ('Journeys (automations)') and enumerating the attributes returned. It is clear what the tool yields, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_journey, list_journey_runs, or list_journey_people.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named, despite many siblings operating on journeys (get_journey, list_journey_runs, list_journey_people, get_journey_performance). The only routing hint is implicit — that deleted items appear as archived rather than being excluded.

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