listTextHistory

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

With no annotations, the description fully relies on its own text. It only says 'List history' but does not disclose whether results are paginated, ordered, or if the lead must exist. Behavioral traits like rate limits or safety implications are omitted.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and resource. However, given the 4 parameters and no output schema, slightly more structure (e.g., mentioning pagination) would improve usability without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., message content, timestamps, sender/receiver). It does not address pagination behavior or any context about the text history, making it incomplete for an AI agent to understand the full scope.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters like leadId, offset, limit, and currentId. It does not clarify how these parameters interact or the nature of the 'history'.

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 explicitly states 'List SMS/text communication history for a lead,' clearly identifying the verb (List), resource (SMS/text communication history), and target (a lead). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listEmailHistory and listCallHistory.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getTextByCommId or searchCommunicationsByAgent. It lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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