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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a paginated GET over a history log aggregated from several record types, which is mildly useful, but it says nothing about default sort, result size, or what a protocol entry contains.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with what the resource is, then how to filter it. No redundant or filler text.

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, fully documented, paginated list tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the resource scope and filtering axes. The main residual gap is the shape of a returned protocol entry, which is only hinted at by the enumeration of entry types.

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%, so every parameter including page, perpage and order is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the four id filters, adding no format or behavioral nuance beyond it — baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource and clarifies that 'protocols' encompasses notes, logged emails and other history entries, so an agent knows what data comes back. It doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling get_note or search_all, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Listing the four filter dimensions (person, company, deal, project) implies the usage pattern, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_note, search_all, or list_tasks, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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