list_entries

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive profile, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: most-recent-first default ordering, pagination, the field-level shape of returned entries (bodies, subjects, sender/recipient names, attachments), and a prompt-injection warning about human-authored content. It omits throughput/rate-limit or deep-paging caveats, so it falls just short of full behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core identity front-loaded, the alternative-tool routing second, and the safety caveat last. No restated title or filler.

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 still tells the agent what entry content looks like and how results are ordered and paginated, which is enough to call it correctly. The only unaddressed area is pagination parameter semantics, a minor gap for a 3-optional-parameter 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 only 33% (only embed is documented; page and perPage rely on bare constraints). The description says 'paginated' and states default ordering, but never explains how page/perPage interact or that perPage caps at 100, so it only partially compensates for the gap.

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?

Names a specific resource and scope: a global timeline feed of notes, captured emails, and completed-task records across the whole account, paginated. Explicitly distinguishes itself from the per-scope siblings (list_party_entries / list_opportunity_entries / list_project_entries), so an agent can pick it without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit use case in quoted form — 'what activity happened today/this week across the company?' — and an explicit exclusion: don't iterate the three scoped list_*_entries tools for cross-account queries. That is exactly the when/when-not/alternative pattern.

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