crm_list_actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scope boundary about master tasks and pipeline; it says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or volume, which matters for an openWorld list tool.

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 sentence with the positive scope front-loaded and the exclusion trailing; no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description conveys what the result set represents and what it deliberately omits. Only the shape of the returned records and any paging behavior remain unspecified, which is minor here.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the filter semantics, which it does state (actions needed, due follow-ups). Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter 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?

The description names a specific verb (list) and a specific resource subset (LinkedIn channel conversations needing action and due follow-ups), which separates it from a generic thread lister. The negative clause ('does not read company master tasks or pipeline') further bounds scope, though it doesn't name the sibling a user should pick instead.

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 implied by the 'needing action and due follow-ups' qualifier, and the exclusion of master tasks/pipeline rules out one adjacent use case. There is no explicit when-to-use or alternative-sibling routing (e.g. crm_list_threads vs linkedin_get_inbox_page), so the agent must infer.

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