List Action Button Executions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: results are grouped by contact, contact person, or deal, and each grouped item carries its stored executions. It says nothing about ordering or what happens when executionsPerRecord truncates data, but the core shape is disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return-shape note. The first line merely restates the title, a small redundancy, but nothing else is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return shape, and it does explain the grouping and the nested executions array. It stops short of describing execution fields or pagination/ordering behavior, which leaves modest gaps for a tool whose result contract is otherwise undocumented.

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 coverage is 100%, including the constraint that propertyIdentification must reference a trigger-variant action button and the semantics of executionsPerRecord. The description adds no syntax, format, or selection guidance beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description states a concrete verb+resource (list target records that have stored executions for one trigger action-button property) and describes the return structure. It does not name the sibling list_trigger_action_buttons to disambiguate 'list buttons' vs 'list executions', so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'to inspect' a trigger action-button property, and the trailing pointer to GET /v1/action-button/trigger hints at how to discover valid property identifiers. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative for listing the buttons themselves.

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