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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The sentence "Ne modifie ni ne lance aucun outil" largely restates that, adding only the nuance that no downstream execution is triggered. Nothing is said about what the returned state contains, how freshness is determined, or what happens with an unknown id.

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 no filler, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than economy; the read-only clarification is front-loaded while the useful object definition is left vague.

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 one-parameter read tool this could be sufficient, but the description never clarifies what the id refers to or what the returned state includes, and there is no output schema to fall back on. Against a large sibling set of journey/service tools, that leaves real ambiguity about correct invocation.

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 0% for the single required parameter "id", so the description carries the full burden and fails to say what the id identifies (a journey plan? a project? a service option?). With one opaque identifier and no compensation in prose, an agent must guess the expected value.

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 gives a read verb ("Lire") and an object ("l’avancement du suivi et l’état réel des éléments associés dans leurs services"), but the object is stated in vague, abstract terms rather than naming the journey plan and its related elements concretely. It does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as get_sales_journey, get_sales_journey_results, or describe_sales_journeys, so an agent cannot easily tell which one to call.

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?

"Ne modifie ni ne lance aucun outil" rules out write/trigger use, which is a weak form of when-not guidance, but there is no positive statement of when this tool should be chosen over the many journey-related siblings. No prerequisites, no context about when a plan id exists or when the state is meaningful.

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