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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing that results are permission-scoped ('you may read', plus per-object create/update/delete permissions) and by flagging untrusted CRM content as a prompt-injection risk. Return shape details (beyond permissions) are not described, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose and the objectType routing rule are front-loaded, the activities exception follows, and the injection-safety note is a single closing line. No redundant sentences; every element carries operational information.

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 compensates by stating what is returned (record types plus the caller's create/update/delete permissions) and how to reuse the values. For a one-parameter, read-only listing tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the single workspaceId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its multi-workspace requirement. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given the schema does the work — baseline 3.

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 ('Lists the record types you may read'), enumerates the standard objects and notes custom objects are included, and explicitly marks activities as out of scope with a pointer to list_activities. An agent can distinguish this from list_records, describe_object, and list_activities without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing guidance ('Use the objectType values here in every other record tool') and names the boundary case with the alternative ('Activities ... are separate: see list_activities'). This tells the agent both when to call this and when to call something else.

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