get_sales_agent_actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint true. The description adds important context: it does not approve/undo actions, requires an API key, and returns a normal empty answer when no actions occurred. No contradiction.

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 front-loaded with a clear summary sentence, then adds purpose and caveats. Each sentence provides distinct value with no filler.

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 tool, the description fully covers purpose, scope, safety, prerequisites, and error semantics. The lack of an output schema means return values aren't a gap.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so description has little need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 states clearly that this tool retrieves the sales agent's actions taken today with summary stats, naming specific examples (actions taken, deals created, replies sent). It distinguishes itself from sibling config/process tools by framing itself as an audit trail.

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?

It explicitly says to use it for auditing and sanity-checking after enabling the agent, and notes it covers TODAY only, so not for historical reporting. However, it doesn't name a specific alternative tool for historical reporting, so it falls short of a full alternatives list.

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