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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, side-effect-free profile is fully covered. The description adds a useful scope constraint ("Describes behavior, not screens") and sketches what it reports, but gives no detail on output shape, limitations, or prerequisites beyond that.

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, front-loaded with the core action and result before the optional parameter note. Every sentence carries information; the middle sentence is the least load-bearing but still short.

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 two-parameter analytical tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, the nature of its output, and the optional scoping mode. An agent has enough to call it correctly, though a bit more on output structure would help.

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 50% and the objective parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description clarifies that user_maturity is an optional focus, but it mostly restates the four enum values (first use, occasional, habitual, expert) that the schema already supplies, adding little interpretation.

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 ("Breaks a user objective into the stages of a real journey") plus a concrete analytical result ("flags entry points and exit paths that have no designed arrival or recovery"). The purpose is clear, but it never references siblings such as critique_experience or find_assumptions, so an agent gets no explicit differentiation help.

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 rather than stated: "Optionally focuses on one user maturity" signals the optional scoping mode, but there is no when-to-use, when-not, or alternative routing among the sibling UX-analysis tools. Adequate but leaves selection to inference.

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