persons_list_updates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes it as a read-only listing operation, lists the types of events returned, but does not mention pagination behavior, error handling, or authentication requirements. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 well-structured with an initial summary, a bullet list of included items, and a 'Useful for' section. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but overall efficient.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (list of events). It covers parameters and use cases. Missing details on pagination defaults and error states, but sufficient for a list tool.

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% and the description adds context for all_changes (not just recent) and items (filter types). This adds meaningful value beyond the schema descriptions, though some parameters like id, start, limit are not further elaborated.

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 it lists updates about a person (activity stream), and provides a comprehensive list of included events. It distinguishes from sibling tools like deals_list_updates by specifying 'about a person' and providing person-specific examples.

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 includes a 'Useful for' section with use cases, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like deals_list_updates or organizations_list_updates. Usage is implied but not clearly guided.

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