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 covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of scope, pagination, ordering, or result volume, which is the kind of context a list tool should supply. It also adds no note about whether all journeys or only active ones are returned.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is concise but arguably over-terse for a tool that offers no other documentation channel.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned, and it does not. Combined with the missing sibling differentiation and the French text in an otherwise English toolset, an agent has too little to call this confidently.

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?

With zero parameters the baseline would normally be 4, but the phrase "du projet" suggests a project filter that has no corresponding parameter, which could mislead an agent into looking for a scope argument. Otherwise there are no parameters needing explanation.

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 ("Lister") and resource ("parcours clients"), so the basic operation is understandable. However, the qualifier "du projet" implies project scoping that does not exist in the schema (zero parameters), and nothing distinguishes this from siblings such as describe_sales_journeys, get_sales_journey, or get_sales_journey_results.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus describe_sales_journeys (which presumably returns metadata/definitions) or get_sales_journey_results (which presumably returns outcome data). The agent must guess which of the sales-journey tools to call for a listing.

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