Find overlaps with live programs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that by signaling the result is approximate — it returns items that 'can't be ruled out,' telling the agent to expect fuzzy candidate matches rather than confirmed collisions.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the scoping context ('For a planned journey or campaign') and then enumerates the match dimensions without filler. Slightly dense with the trailing 'can't be ruled out' clause, but no wasted wording.

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?

Input semantics are adequately covered for a 6-parameter tool with no output schema, but the description never indicates what the response looks like — a per-item list of overlaps with reasons, a grouped summary, or counts — leaving the agent to discover result shape at call time.

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 only 33% (lists, events, segments, attributes are undocumented in the schema). The description compensates by defining each dimension's role: segments/lists are targeted, events are triggered on, attributes are used — giving the agent the matching semantics the schema omits.

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 states a specific analysis: surfacing live campaigns/journeys that share segments, lists, events, or attributes with a planned one. It is framed as a question rather than a verb ('find'), but the resource and matching dimensions are concrete, and it reads distinctly from siblings like what_breaks or what_changed.

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?

'For a planned journey or campaign' implies the pre-launch context, which is real usage guidance. However, no alternatives are named (e.g., what_breaks, check_campaign) and no when-not condition is given, so the agent must infer routing.

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