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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: pagination mechanics, the fact that reopened closures are included, and an explicit prompt-injection warning about untrusted CRM content.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then adds two compact sentences of operational notes. The security warning costs a line but is justified for a tool returning user-authored field content; no padding otherwise.

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, but the description still explains what is returned (stages, closures, reopen history) and how to page. Return-value shape details are absent, which is a minor gap for a read-only history tool.

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 20% (workspaceId alone is described), so the description must carry the load. It clarifies objectType (lead or deal), the record id, and paging, but limit is untouched and it says 'Pass nextOffset' while the schema exposes 'offset' — a naming mismatch that could confuse the caller.

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 and resource: it returns the stage, close and reopen history of a lead or deal, paged. This is clearly distinct from get_record (full record) and get_timeline (activity timeline), though it never names those siblings to route the agent explicitly.

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?

It gives cross-tool workflow guidance (the returned closure id is fed to correct_closure as closeEpisodeId) and paging instructions, which is real usage context. But it never says when to pick this tool over get_record/get_timeline, so selection between siblings is left implied.

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