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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a real behavioral trait – output is per-visitor with an ordered sequence of subsequent steps, implying high-cardinality, ordered rows – but says nothing about pagination/limit behavior or how many steps are returned. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with the core meaning front-loaded. The closing clause on `page` duplicates the schema description and is the only wasted content.

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 7-parameter tool with a nested filters object and no output schema, the description is thin: it never explains the time window parameters, how `limit` truncates the per-visitor paths, or whether filters narrow the entry cohort or the subsequent steps. An agent can call it, but cannot confidently predict what it gets back.

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 only 43% across 7 parameters (including a nested filters object), so the description needs to compensate and does not. It only restates `page`, which the schema already documents verbatim ('Entry page path, e.g. /pricing'), leaving the date window (from/days/to), `to`, and `limit` unexplained.

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 concretely what the tool returns: visitors who entered on one page, plus the step-by-step path they took afterwards. That is a specific verb+resource combination (entry-page journey paths) that separates it from get_visitors and get_timeseries. It does not explicitly name a sibling or state how it differs from inspect_page, which keeps it below 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?

There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as inspect_page or get_visitors for related questions. The only implied context is that you must supply an entry page, which is already visible in the schema.

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