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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real operational context: results are newest-first, the note body lives in the Comments field, and omitting `select` returns hundreds of columns per row. It does not describe pagination behavior, though the schema covers that via next_skip.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and ordering, followed by filtering, a field-location note, and a schema-hint. Every sentence carries information an agent could act on; nothing is redundant with the name or annotations.

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 list tool with 7 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the missing context an agent needs: default ordering, field defaults, and the note-text location. Only minor gaps remain, such as result shape and total-count behavior.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: due_after/due_before are framed as a due-date window, entity_id is tied to 'the entity they belong to', and `select` is explained as an override for the default field set. It does not clarify interaction semantics such as whether filters combine with AND.

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 and enumerates the activity subtypes (calls, emails, to-dos, notes) plus the default ordering (newest first), which lets an agent distinguish it from list tools for other record types. It does not differentiate itself from the generic sibling method_query_records, so it falls 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?

Gives concrete usage context: filter by entity, assigned user, or a due-date window, and route to method_get_table_fields to discover field names for `select`. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison against the generic query sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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