crm_get_field_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral hints like 'If no changes found, verify field names and date range' in Error Recovery, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the return format looks like, or any permission requirements. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is well-organized with clear headers (Prerequisites, Next Steps, Business Value, Error Recovery) and front-loads the main purpose. It is efficient and each section serves a purpose, though the 'Business Value' section is somewhat superfluous.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides workflow and error recovery guidance but does not explain return value structure or pagination behavior. It covers the basics but leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand what to expect from the 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-related context beyond the schema; the error recovery note mentions field names and date range, which correlates with existing fields. No substantial new parameter meaning is provided.

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 starts with 'Track field change history for records - detailed audit of specific field modifications', which clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like crm_get_timeline by focusing on field changes rather than general timeline events.

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?

The description provides explicit workflow context: 'Prerequisites: Use crm_search_records or crm_search_by_timeline to find target records' and 'Next Steps: Use crm_analyze_activity_patterns for trend analysis'. This clearly indicates when to use the tool relative to others, though it does not explicitly state exclusions.

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