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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds only the backing implementation detail ('GraphQL query journeyTemplates'), with no mention of rate limits, auth scope, or result ordering beyond the field list.

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?

Three compact fragments, the resource definition front-loaded ahead of the follow-up usage hint and the backing query. Nothing redundant; every clause carries information.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields and points at the consuming tool, and the schema fully covers pagination. Only minor gaps remain, such as ordering and whether pageInfo is returned in the reply.

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 100%, with limit, offset and journey_type_id each documented including defaults and the pageInfo.next hint. The description adds no additional filtering or format semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('List journey templates') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, description, type), which lets an agent distinguish it from kiwihr_get_journey. It does not explicitly contrast with kiwihr_list_journeys or kiwihr_list_journey_types, so the sibling split is only implied by the resource name.

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 downstream hint 'Use a template id with kiwihr_create_journey' gives a clear purpose for the result, which is useful workflow context. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over kiwihr_list_journey_types or kiwihr_list_journeys, and no exclusions.

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