dealdesk.list_status_updates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails to. It says nothing about read-only semantics, ordering, pagination behavior, or what the result set contains for a tool with a limit parameter. The parenthetical is a taxonomy, not behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though it could have used one more sentence to carry behavioral context without bloat.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover more of the tool's behavior. It is adequate on scope but silent on pagination, ordering, and default entity behavior, which is a real gap for a 5-parameter list tool even at 80% schema coverage.

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 80%, so the schema already documents projectId, entityId, cardId, and entityType. The description restates the entity scope and the kinds of updates but adds no meaning about the limit parameter, ordering, or the cardId/entityId alias relationship. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (status updates), and enumerates what counts as a status update (comments, tasks, touchpoints including email) plus the entity scope (desk card, company, contact). An agent can distinguish this from add_card_note or create_status_update, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling list tools.

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 entity options imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_card or list_cards. Usage is inferable but never stated.

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