pipedrive_get_deal_followers_changelog

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and behavior. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., pagination, changelog contents, rate limits). With annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence with 6 words, no fluff, and the key information is front-loaded. Every word is necessary and earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, but without an output schema, the description does not explain what the changelog contains (e.g., fields, actions). While annotations cover safety and the tool is low complexity, a bit more detail would improve completeness for an agent unfamiliar with the concept.

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% – all three parameters (id, cursor, limit) have descriptions. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is correct.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'followers changelog', and the scope 'for a deal'. It distinguishes from sibling changelog tools for other entities (e.g., organization, person) through the deal-specific naming.

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 implies when to use: to retrieve historical follower changes for a deal. It implicitly distinguishes from pipedrive_list_deal_followers (current followers) and other entity changelogs. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for agent selection.

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