list_opportunity_entries

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context: the order of results (newest-first) and the structure of entries (type, content, timestamps), without contradicting 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 three sentences: the first states what the tool does and key details, the second provides a use case, and the third lists alternatives. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, achieving high conciseness.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and existing annotations, the description covers the main purpose, usage context, and differentiation. It could be more complete by explicitly mentioning pagination details or the return format, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 4 parameters with only 25% description coverage (only 'embed' is described). The description does not explain the critical parameters like opportunityId, page, or perPage, relying on the schema for names but adding no semantic value beyond the tool's general purpose.

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 that the tool lists timeline entries for an opportunity, specifying the types (notes, emails, tasks), content, and ordering (newest-first). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning alternatives for party or project timelines, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to answer what's the latest on deal X?' and directly names alternatives: 'For party or project timelines, use list_party_entries or list_project_entries respectively.' This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool and when not to.

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