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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it 'does not run actions or write history', which reinforces the read-only nature. It also mentions required permissions and includes an API reference link for further details, adding useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 description is concise with two sentences: one explaining the tool's core functionality, and another listing permissions and an API reference link. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but noted), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, behavior, permissions, and a reference link. Could potentially mention error conditions or edge cases, but for a read-only preview tool, this is largely sufficient.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented (automation_id and subscriber_id). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately describes the parameters.

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 clearly specifies the verb 'shows' and the resource 'bounded path a selected Subscriber would take through the current saved conditions'. It distinguishes from other automation tools by emphasizing it doesn't run actions or write history, and implies it's a preview/simulation tool, which is distinct from preflight or execution tools.

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 description implies usage for previewing without side effects, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like automations_preflight or sequences_preview_journey. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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