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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond this: pagination continuation behavior ('nextOffset continues the result'), the inclusion of reversed episodes, and a notable security disclosure that CRM field values are untrusted user content to be treated as data, never instructions — a strong prompt-injection awareness signal. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 dense sentences (~45 words) front-loaded with purpose, followed by the historical-correction usage note, pagination continuation, and the security caution. Every sentence carries distinct value with zero redundancy or filler.

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 read-only tool whose safety is already declared by annotations, the description covers purpose, pagination behavior, and the security caveat. With no output schema provided, it does not describe return format, but it does not claim to. The only real gap is the unclarified relationship between offset/limit and nextOffset, which is minor given the pagination context already given.

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 only 20% (only workspaceId is described), so the description must compensate. It partially does by linking the episode id to historical corrections and addressing pagination via nextOffset. However, it does not clarify the relationship between offset/limit and nextOffset, nor explain the objectType enum scope — leaving a gap the low schema coverage does not fill. The description adds some meaning but does not fully compensate.

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 pair: 'Returns paginated lifecycle events and deal closure episodes' — precise about what it retrieves and includes ('including reversed episodes'), which differentiates it from siblings like get_record, get_timeline, and get_lifecycle_action_status without ambiguity. The focus on episodes and lifecycle distinguishes it clearly.

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?

Provides a concrete use-case instruction ('Use the exact episode id for historical corrections') and pagination guidance ('nextOffset continues the result'), but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus sibling tools like get_timeline or get_record. Usage context is implied rather than made explicit with exclusions.

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