Find campaigns, journeys, segments or blocks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results come from the 'latest snapshot', implying cached rather than live data, but says nothing about result shape, pagination, or what happens when a query matches many items.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the routing guidance. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 6 parameters, 50% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description needs to explain what comes back (names? IDs?) and how many. It does not, so an agent cannot tell what it will receive or whether results are directly usable by the check_* tools.

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 only 50%: 'query' and 'active_only' have no field descriptions. The phrase 'by name' does clarify that the free-text query matches on names rather than IDs, which is genuine added meaning. But the description contributes nothing about 'kind' defaulting to 'all', the meaning of 'active_only', or how 'workspace' resolves, leaving a real gap.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource: 'Search the latest snapshot by name.' Combined with the title, an agent can tell this is a name-based entity resolution/lookup tool rather than a checker or editor. It does not explicitly say it returns campaigns/journeys/segments/blocks, so the entity scope comes mostly from the title rather than the description itself.

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?

'Use it to resolve what the person means before checking, mapping or analysing impact' clearly positions it as a disambiguation step that precedes the check_*/what_breaks siblings. It gives context but no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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