get_customer_journey

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose if the operation is read-only, any performance implications, pagination, or limits. The description mentions 'timeline' but lacks behavioral details like whether it returns all data or only recent 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?

The description is a single sentence in Spanish, which is concise but includes an unexplained '[query]' placeholder. It could be more structured, but it front-loads the purpose. Not a model of 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?

With no output schema, the description should explain the output structure. It lists item types but not their order, format, or if it's a paginated list. The tool is complex with 4 parameters, yet the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the response.

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 100% with descriptions for phone, date, period, and days. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, except the ambiguous '[query]' which is not a parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameters.

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 clearly states it provides 'Historial completo del cliente' (complete customer history) including messages, comments, files, tasks, orders, and follow-ups. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_customer_info or get_purchase_history which are more specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include many getter tools, but the description does not specify the scenarios where this aggregated timeline is preferred over individual lookups.

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