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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already establish the safety profile, and the description goes beyond them by enumerating the three check families (structural, best practices, nudges) and the per-issue shape (stable code, severity, message, suggestion). With no output schema present, this return-shape disclosure is genuinely additive; it stops short of stating whether the run has side effects like caching or whether results are persisted.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the detail (categories, issue shape) layered behind it. The category enumeration is dense but each item earns its place as an aid to interpreting results; only minor trimming is possible.

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?

Annotations cover safety, the schema covers both parameters with full descriptions, and there is no output schema — so the description rightly carries the return-value burden and does so with issue codes, severity domain and suggestion field. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 100%, so severityFilter and expectedProjectId are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about either parameter (it doesn't mention filtering or cross-project targeting), 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Runs the Customer Journey validation engine on the current journey and returns the list of issues'), which cleanly separates it from validate_arch, validate_captable and validate_process_flow. It also scopes the target ('current journey'), so an agent knows exactly what gets validated.

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?

Usage is implied by the validation framing and the 'current journey' scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to sibling validators (e.g. validate_process_flow). The category list hints at what it checks but not at when an agent should reach for it.

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