Run a saved user journey

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description reinforces this by warning that saved steps can submit forms or trigger actions, and explains the async nature (queues and returns immediately). No contradictions with 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?

The description is four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence provides essential information: purpose, licensing, risk warning, and async polling. No filler or redundancy.

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 description covers purpose, side effects, async behavior, and polling. With an output schema presumed to describe the return format, it adequately informs the agent. Lacks details on error scenarios but remains largely complete.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions of siteHost and journeyName. The description adds value by clarifying that steps and credentials come from saved config and are not accepted as parameters, enhancing understanding beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool replays a saved multi-step journey and checks accessibility at each step. It distinguishes from siblings like scan_url and get_journey_run by emphasizing saved journeys and polling mechanism.

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 clear context: it warns about destructive side effects from saved steps, mentions license requirements (Pro+), and directs to poll get_journey_run. It implicitly contrasts with scanning tools but does not explicitly list alternatives.

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