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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine value by disclosing the returned fields (id, name, status enum values, assignee, type, custom date). It says nothing about pagination or result ordering, but the schema's offset/limit notes cover paging.

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 tight sentences: what it returns, how to filter, and the underlying API. Nothing redundant and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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, listing the returned fields is exactly the right compensation, and paging/precision details live in the schema. Only the absence of routing guidance versus sibling journey tools keeps it short of full completeness.

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%, so every filter parameter is already documented with its semantics. The description restates the filter dimensions and adds the useful mapping hint that journey type filters come from kiwihr_list_journey_types, but does not add syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('List onboarding/offboarding journeys') and enumerates the fields returned, so the agent knows exactly what entity and shape to expect. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from kiwihr_get_journey or kiwihr_list_journey_templates, though the list-vs-get naming makes the split reasonably clear.

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?

'Filter by status, assignee, type or team' implies when the filters are useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus kiwihr_get_journey for a single journey or kiwihr_list_journey_types for the type catalog. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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