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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it returns metadata only and never exposes login values, passwords, access codes, or encrypted payloads, which tells the agent this is safe to call for inspection without leaking secrets.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the resource and its scope front-loaded before the return-value caveat. Nothing padding or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be enumerated, and the one required parameter is fully described. The description adds a useful secrecy guarantee; only minor gaps remain (no pagination or auth-scope notes), which is acceptable for a simple read-only list.

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 a single documented journeyId, so the schema carries the burden and baseline is 3. The phrase 'owned journey' only echoes the schema's 'Owned journey ID' without adding format or validation detail.

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 a specific verb (List) and resource (saved credential references) plus scope (available to an owned journey). No sibling tool covers credentials, so an agent can route here unambiguously from list_journeys/get_journey.

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 never says when to call this vs. alternatives or what prerequisite state is needed (e.g., before configuring a journey step that references a credential). Scope is implied by 'owned journey' but there is no explicit usage guidance.

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