crm_search_by_timeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes that results may be empty and suggests 'try broader date range or different action types,' implying date/action filtering behavior. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the response format is, or any permission requirements. This is a notable gap for a search tool, but the error recovery hint adds some value.

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 concise and well-structured with bold headings (Prerequisites, Next Steps, Use Cases, Error Recovery). It front-loads the main purpose and each section adds useful information without excessive verbosity. Slightly long but every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema. The description covers use cases and error recovery but does not describe the return value structure, pagination behavior (beyond schema), or how results are ordered. For a search tool, this is a moderate gap, but the description is not completely inadequate given the schema richness and clear purpose.

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%, with every parameter already described in the input schema. The description adds marginal context by mentioning 'date ranges' and 'action types' in the error recovery section, but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Search records by timeline events - find records modified within date ranges.' The verb 'search' and resource 'records by timeline events' is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like crm_get_timeline, which is for detailed analysis of a single record's timeline. The scope (date ranges) is explicit.

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?

Provides clear usage context with 'Use Cases: Recent activity analysis, audit trails, change tracking' and offers alternatives via 'Next Steps: Use crm_get_timeline for detailed analysis → crm_get_field_changes for specific tracking.' It does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool, but the use cases and next steps effectively guide selection.

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