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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: result pagination is 0-based and callers should check hasMore. It still omits what happens for an unknown id or how large a page is.

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 tight sentences with no filler: payload content first, pagination rule second. Minor deductions for the dense, comma-spliced noun list and for the description being in French while the name and title are in English.

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?

With no output schema, the description does reasonable duty by naming the categories of data returned, and it covers the pagination loop. But for a results tool keyed on a required id, neither the identity/validity of that id nor the shape or ordering of results is addressed.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the 'page' parameter (starts at 0) and points at the hasMore signal, but says nothing about 'id' – the required parameter – leaving the agent to guess that it is a journey identifier and what form it takes.

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 enumerates the data returned ('visites, demandes, achats confirmés, variantes, sources et état des relances'), which conveys that this is a retrieval of sales-journey outcome data. However, it never states the verb/resource relationship explicitly and gives no hint of how it differs from close siblings like get_sales_journey, list_sales_journeys, or describe_sales_journeys.

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 prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to call this to inspect results versus calling describe_sales_journeys for configuration or list_sales_journeys for enumeration.

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