Lead Journey

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, establishing the read-only nature. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it returns multiple journey components (sales, calls, etc.) and accepts emails directly. It does not disclose response format or potential limitations, but with annotations covering safety, this is sufficient.

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?

The description is two concise sentences: the first states the function and data components, the second gives a use case and input flexibility. It is front-loaded with no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool has 3 optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains the purpose, the contents of the journey, and when to use it, which is adequate for tool selection and basic invocation. It could mention response shape or pagination, but the listed components give a reasonable expectation.

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 the schema already documents ids, emails, and includeEvents thoroughly. The description reinforces email acceptance but does not add new parameter-level syntax or semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource: 'complete customer journey for one or more leads,' and enumerates components (sales, calls, carts, subscriptions, linked leads, ad attribution sources). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual data types.

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 description provides a specific use case: 'Use this to understand what ads drove a customer to convert.' It also implies a workflow advantage by stating 'Accepts emails directly, so no lookup round-trip is needed.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria.

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