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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing what each journey record contains, including required modules, plan compatibility, and sandbox run duration.

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?

The definition is front-loaded with the main action, followed by the returned metadata, filters, and the question it answers. It is compact and every sentence contributes to selection or interpretation.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the key fields returned for each journey. Combined with the annotations and fully documented input schema, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, and both role and version already have enum descriptions explaining their filtering behavior. The description says 'Filter by version and role' but adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: it lists OCPI charging journeys and enumerates the metadata each journey includes. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_runnable_journeys tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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 states the intended use case directly: filtering by version and role to answer which journeys test the caller's role at a given OCPI version. It gives clear context but does not mention exclusions or name an alternative sibling tool for runnable journeys.

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