get_lead_timeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool returns a JSON string with lead record and timeline array, pagination info, and that account_id auto-resolves. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the description implies no side effects. A score of 4 is appropriate given good coverage without annotations.

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: main purpose, benefit, args block, and returns. It is informative but slightly verbose; the args block could be more formal. Still, it is front-loaded with key information and every sentence adds value.

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 4 parameters, 1 required, no schema descriptions, and an output schema present (though not shown), the description covers all parameters, explains output structure, and mentions pagination. It is complete for the tool's complexity and does not need to detail return values due to 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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: it explains lead_id format ('PER...' lead id from `list_leads`), account_id auto-resolves if omitted, per_page max 250, and page is 1-indexed. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates, providing format constraints and behavior.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get a lead's full cross-channel activity timeline — every call, form submission, and text thread from that person in one response, with first-touch/last-touch attribution.' It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning it replaces the manual multi-step search process.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'This replaces the manual "search calls by number + search forms by email" dance when reconstructing a customer's history.' It provides clear context for use but does not include explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools beyond the implied replacement.

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