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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive behavior, and closed-world scope. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the basic concept: it does not mention defaults, period handling, filtering behavior, or what is returned.

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 fragment with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It is front-loaded with a vague concept and gives the agent no actionable structure for invoking the tool.

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 an eight-parameter analytics tool with no output schema, the description is far too thin. It should clarify the purpose relative to funnel and breakdown tools, explain important defaults such as period=30d, and describe journey step behavior.

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 all eight parameters are documented in the schema, including period, filters, steps, and goal inclusion. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the explanatory work.

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 'The routes visitors take through the website' names the resource concept but does not state an action such as retrieving, listing, or analyzing journeys. It largely restates the tool title and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_funnel or get_breakdown.

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 guidance, no mention of alternatives such as get_funnel or get_breakdown, and no explanation of when journey analysis is appropriate versus other analytics tools. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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