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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns 'full details' and 'all steps', but says nothing about read-only nature, required permissions, error behavior (e.g., 404 for invalid journey ID), or response structure beyond that vague phrasing. This is minimal disclosure.

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?

One sentence, no filler, every word contributes to conveying the action and scope. It is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. While concise, it lacks some detail, but that is a completeness concern, not conciseness.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with a single required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential return content (full details, all steps). It does not enumerate all possible fields, but that is not strictly required at this level of complexity. It could mention error scenarios or required permissions, but overall it is reasonably complete.

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% for the only parameter, journeyId, which is described as 'The journey ID'. The description adds no extra semantic meaning to the parameter—it simply mentions 'specific journey' which aligns with the parameter but does not elaborate on format, constraints, or how to obtain the ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the action (Get) and resource (journey), with specific scope ('specific journey') and content ('all steps'). It unambiguously distinguishes from list_journeys (which lists multiple) and mutation tools like create/update/delete.

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 when you need full details of a single journey, differentiating it from list_journeys. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions (e.g., 'use this to get a single journey; use list_journeys to browse'). The guidance is only implicit.

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