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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return structure (flows and channels arrays) and gives an example of the transition pattern, making the tool's behavior transparent. While it does not explicitly mention side effects or permissions, the 'Get' nature and the detailed return info make the operation clear.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, an example flow, a dedicated 'WHEN TO USE' section, and a 'RETURNS' section. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is appropriately concise without being under-specified.

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 the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is highly complete. It explains what the tool does, provides usage scenarios, and details the return format, which covers all necessary context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already describes campaign_id as 'Campaign identifier' with full coverage. The description's mention of 'for a campaign' adds minimal semantic value beyond schema, essentially restating it. There is no additional detail on format, defaults, or edge cases, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

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 a specific action ('Get cross-channel customer journey data') on a specific resource ('for a campaign'), with an illustrative flow (DOOH -> mobile -> web -> store). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning Sankey flow and cross-channel journey, which is unique among the listed get_* tools.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly lists three scenarios where this tool is appropriate, such as visualizing customer journeys and building Sankey diagrams. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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