Contact event history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description's only behavioral addition is that results are returned 'in order'; it says nothing about pagination, limits, or the shape of event records. Consistent with annotations but modest value beyond them.

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?

Four short labeled lines, each front-loaded and purposeful: purpose, exclusion, return, and trigger condition. No filler, and the exclusion is stated before the use case where it matters.

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, the description does tell the agent what comes back ('that contact's event history' in order), which is enough to call it correctly. It stops short of describing event record fields or result volume, a minor gap for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Contact UUID'), so the schema carries the load. The description's 'for one contact' scoping adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides — baseline 3.

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 and resource — 'List every event recorded for one contact, in order' — and explicitly carves out the sibling situation: delivery activity lives in plunk_get_activity. An agent can distinguish this from plunk_get_activity and plunk_list_events without opening any schema.

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?

Has an explicit 'Not for' line naming plunk_get_activity and the condition that routes there, plus a 'Use when' framing the diagnostic scenario (why a contact did/did not enter a workflow or segment). Both when-to-use and when-not are stated.

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