mkt_journey

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it usefully discloses that the operation is read-only and that output includes funnel, breakpoints, and repair suggestions. It omits auth/permission needs, how the required events/identity_map inputs are handled, and any behavior on empty or partial data.

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 front-loaded sentence that opens with the read-only nature and packs filters plus return values without redundant wording. Efficient, though the terse Chinese phrasing packs multiple claims that could be split for clarity.

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?

This is a nested, 5-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, yet the description never explains the required events or identity_map inputs or the output structure beyond naming three artifacts. Too thin for the tool's complexity.

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 0% across 5 parameters, and the description only names three filters (campaign/subject/time_window). The required events array-of-objects and the identity_map parameter are completely unaddressed, leaving key input semantics undefined.

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?

States a specific resource (user journey) with an explicit read-only qualifier, the filters used, and what it returns (funnel, breakpoints, repair suggestions). This is concrete and distinguishable, though it does not name a specific sibling it is meant to replace.

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?

Says the tool is read-only and filtered by campaign/subject/time_window, which implies an inspection/analysis use case, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and never references alternatives among the many mkt_* siblings.

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