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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the description only needs to add context. It usefully discloses the return shape (per-step events with assertion outcomes), but says nothing about pagination behavior, whether all steps are returned in one call, or ordering — and the cursor is only explained in 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. The 'Answers:' sentence partially restates the first, but it does add the per-step assertion framing rather than being pure padding.

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 output schema, the description's characterization of the result (step-by-step events plus passing assertions) is the main signal about return content, and it delivers that. Remaining gaps — pagination/termination behavior and event ordering — are modest for a two-parameter read-only 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both reportId and the 'after' cursor are fully documented in the schema with cursor semantics spelled out. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the load.

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 — read the step-by-step events of a charging journey on this account — plus the payload detail (which assertions passed per step). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_run_verdict or get_run_checks, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

The 'Answers: what happened at each step of this journey' framing implies when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to nearby tools such as get_run_checks, which also deals with assertion results and could be confused with this one.

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