Describe a journey

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

Annotations mark it read-only and closed-world, but the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns a plain-English, step-by-step breakdown and includes the state of each required event. This goes beyond the safety hint by describing the output's content and intended interpretation, without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences convey purpose, output content, and a use case without filler. The key behavioral information is front-loaded, and every clause contributes meaning.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool in a well-defined domain, the description covers what it does, how the output is presented, and when to call it. It omits explicit return schema but the output is naturally described as a plain-English explanation, which is sufficient for this simple tool.

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?

The input schema already documents journeyId as 'From list_journeys,' giving the agent sufficient sourcing information (100% schema coverage). The description does not elaborate on the parameter, but none is needed; it does not add semantics beyond naming a single journey, so it remains at the high-coverage baseline of 3.

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 clearly explains the tool's function: describing one journey's steps and the state of every event it needs. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on a single journey rather than listing journeys or events, while 'what one journey does' functions as a specific purpose statement.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to understand what a missing event actually blocks before deciding where to track it.' However, it does not name alternatives or provide exclusions, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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