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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Return status'. It does not mention that it is read-only, idempotent, or what happens if the workspaceId is invalid. The idempotencyKey description mentions 'same mutation', which is contradictory for a status-checking tool. Missing prerequisites, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 a single sentence of 12 words, which is concise. It gets to the point without fluff. However, it may be too concise, lacking important context about parameters and usage.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify the return format and structure, but it only lists three aspects without indicating whether they are fields in a JSON object. The outputFormat parameter (markdown/json) is not mentioned. The complex input parameter is not explained. The description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and a nested object.

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 75%; most parameters have descriptions. The workspaceId description is helpful ('returned by start or status tool'). The input parameter has a vague description ('Fields required by this journey action') and no additional detail in the tool description. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 states it returns three types of status (active-probe, real-page, remediation) for an activation attempt. It distinguishes from siblings like get_sulvo_revenue_onboarding_status and run_sulvo_activation_preflight, but is slightly ambiguous by saying 'latest' while requiring a workspaceId, implying a specific activation rather than the most recent across all.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The tool does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_sulvo_revenue_onboarding_status or run_sulvo_activation_preflight. There is no explicit indication of prerequisites (e.g., activation must have been started).

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