list_change_journal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral limit: results omit original (before) values, so the agent knows this cannot be used to reconstruct prior state, and results are scoped to the active identity/environment rather than being freely filterable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It could have spent a few more words on pagination, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 agent gets no field-level shape of an entry, no ordering guarantee, and no pagination semantics beyond the bare limit/offset parameters. The 'without original values' caveat is the most important thing present, but the definition is only minimally sufficient for a paginated list tool.

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 33% — just environment_profile is documented — so the description must compensate and does not. It says nothing about limit/offset, pagination behavior, ordering of returned entries, or the default page size, despite pagination being the main way an agent would use this tool.

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?

Clear verb+resource: "List persistent journal entries" scoped to "the active CRM identity and environment." This distinguishes it from the single-entry get_change_journal and the mutating siblings (update_record_with_journal, rollback_record_journal), though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb "List" and the identity/environment scoping clause. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_change_journal or rollback_record_journal, and no statement about whether filtering to a specific record or time window is possible or should be done elsewhere.

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