Get automation journey

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the description's extra value is the auth requirement: 'OAuth integrations require automations:read.' That scope disclosure is genuinely useful context an agent cannot get from the structured fields, though nothing is said about return format or pagination.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The purpose and the auth constraint are immediately visible, though the first sentence is largely redundant with the title.

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 simple read tool with 100% schema coverage, an output schema absent (so return values need not be explained), and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers the essentials plus the OAuth scope requirement. It is essentially complete for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including the account defaulting behavior and the ID prefixes. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected 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 restates the name ('Get automation journey'), which is a clear verb+resource but essentially tautological with the title. It does not distinguish this single-journey getter from siblings like get_automation or list_automation_journeys, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the name alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as list_automation_journeys, and no prerequisites stated. 'Reads account data' gives a faint contextual hint but does not tell the agent when to select this tool over its siblings.

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