List automation journeys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: 'Reads account data' and the OAuth scope requirement 'automations:read', which an agent needs for auth planning.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the read behavior, then the auth scope. 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?

No output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. The auth scope and read nature are stated; only pagination/result-shape nuance is absent, which the schema largely covers.

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%, including pagination, limit defaults, status enum values, and ID patterns, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 verb+resource ('List automation journeys'), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it does not differentiate from closely named siblings such as list_automations, get_automation, or get_automation_journey, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and never mentions the required automation_id/publication_id scoping that separates this from sibling listing tools. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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