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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior: 'newest first', 'limit at most 50', 'Returns not_found if the record does not exist or is not visible to you', and a security warning about untrusted CRM field values. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't exhaustively cover all behaviors (e.g., attachment handling details).

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 two compact sentences with zero filler. The purpose and key constraints are front-loaded, and the security note is essential. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 history tool with no output schema, the description conveys core functionality (event types, diffs, attachments), ordering, limit, and error condition. It omits explicit mention of workspaceId requirements (though schema covers it) and does not detail pagination beyond limit, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 25% (only workspaceId has a description). The description mentions 'limit at most 50' but merely repeats the schema's maximum constraint. It does not explain objectType or id semantics, nor does it add context for workspaceId beyond the schema. For low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so meaningfully.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('change history of one record you may view') with details on event types, ordering, and limit. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_record (current state) and list_activities (activity list), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies use for history needs (e.g., 'change history') but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_record or list_activities, nor any 'when not to use' note. It provides context but leaves routing to the agent's inference.

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