list_entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so an agent knows it is a safe read. The description adds valuable behavior context: pagination is supported, default order is most-recent-first, and it covers multiple record types. It omits specifics like pagination response format or embed details, but given annotations cover the safety profile, this is strong.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the purpose, states the ordering, and then gives the usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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 no output schema, the description could explain return format, but the tool is a paginated list—an agent can infer the response structure from the schema parameters. The description covers scope, ordering, and alternatives. It doesn't mention embed tokens or pagination details, but that is slightly beyond the minimum for a read-only 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 description coverage is only 33% (only 'embed' is described in schema; 'page' and 'perPage' are not). The description does add context by mentioning pagination and the default ordering, and it hints that this is a global feed. However, it doesn't explain the exact semantics of the three parameters beyond what schema provides for 'embed'; but the description's mention of pagination compensates somewhat. Given the description adds some meaning beyond the bare parameter names and types, a 4 is justified.

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 is specific: 'Global timeline feed: every note, captured email, and completed-task record across the whole Capsule account, paginated.' It defines the resource, the verb (list), the scope, and the content type, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list entries per party/opportunity/project.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('what activity happened today/this week across the company?') and points to sibling alternatives that should be used instead for scoped lists, naming them explicitly. This is the optimal pattern for usage guidance.

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