people_get_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 usefully notes that the timeline includes status changes and updates, and mentions error recovery around permissions and empty timelines. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, the precise effect of include_inner_details, or what timeline_types values are accepted, leaving several behavioral aspects unexplored.

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 section headers (Prerequisites, Next Steps, Use Cases, Error Recovery). Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the presence of six parameters, the description provides useful context such as prerequisites, use cases, and error recovery. However, it does not describe the return structure, explain parameter semantics beyond the schema, or specify how timeline_types and include_inner_details affect results, leaving some gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or clarifications of timeline_types or include_inner_details. It only states the general content of the timeline, which is already implied by the tool name.

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 uses a specific verb-plus-resource structure: 'Get timeline/activity history for a People record including status changes and updates.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling timeline tools like crm_get_timeline by explicitly targeting People records.

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 clear context for when to use the tool via prerequisites ('Record ID from people_search_records'), next steps, and use cases (employee activity tracking, change auditing, compliance monitoring). It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools such as crm_get_timeline, but the focus on People records makes the usage context clear.

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