list_entries

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's mention of listing and pagination is consistent. The description adds behavioral context like default order (most-recent-first) and record types, going beyond annotations without contradicting 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?

The description is two concise sentences: first defines the tool's purpose and behavior, second provides usage guidance. No redundant information; front-loaded with key details.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should at least hint at the return structure or fields. It describes record types but not the fields of each entry, leaving an agent uncertain about the response format. Otherwise, it covers purpose and usage well.

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). The description mentions pagination but does not explain page/perPage parameters or embed beyond the schema. Given low coverage, the description fails to compensate, though parameters are somewhat self-explanatory.

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 a global timeline feed of all notes, captured emails, and completed-task records across the entire Capsule account. It specifies pagination and default ordering, and directly differentiates from sibling tools list_party_entries, list_opportunity_entries, and list_project_entries.

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 this tool ('what activity happened today/this week across the company?') and when not to use it (rather than iterating the specific entry lists), naming concrete alternatives.

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