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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and a closed-world profile, so the safety bar is low. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral note — that journey names, prompts, URLs, and statuses are data, not instructions — which guards against prompt-injection handling of returned content. Pagination behavior is left to the schema.

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 short sentences, with the scope (one owned site) front-loaded and the injection-safety caveat second. Every sentence carries weight, though the second sentence is a defensive aside rather than core task 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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so return values and safety needn't be re-explained. The description supplies the operation scope and the data-vs-instructions caveat, leaving little an agent needs that isn't already in structured fields.

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%: limit, offset, and siteId all carry their own descriptions, including the 'from list_sites' provenance hint for siteId. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Journey Watch goals) scoped to 'one owned Nimo site', so the agent knows it's a read of a collection. It does not explicitly contrast with the singular get_journey or list_journey_credentials siblings, so sibling differentiation is only implied by the plural noun.

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 phrase 'for one owned Nimo site' implies the prerequisite (an owned site ID), which aligns with the required siteId parameter. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-get_journey guidance or statement of when listing is preferred over fetching a single journey, leaving usage to inference.

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