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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful default ('by default, COMPOSITE' tests are included), which is useful. But it says nothing about pagination, return format, permissions, or what happens when neither filter is supplied, leaving most behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is terse and efficient, though the density of unexplained domain terms slightly reduces readability.

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 tool with 4 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits limit behavior, return shape, and the relationship between the two filter inputs, so an agent lacks enough context to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It covers scenarioTitles and testchimpIds and gestures at includeComposites ('by default'), but says nothing about limit or its maximum of 100, and gives no syntax or format hints. Roughly one parameter is left wholly undocumented.

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 ('Find') and resource ('JOURNEY and COMPOSITE performance tests'), and names the input domain (scenario titles and TestChimp ids). This distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like list-perf-runs and list-perf-baselines. However, 'JOURNEY' and 'COMPOSITE' are undefined jargon, so the exact nature of the returned entities requires inference.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The phrase 'by default' implies optional composite inclusion but leaves the selection rationale to inference. With several perf-related siblings (list-perf-runs, list-perf-baselines, get-perf-run), the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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