list_opportunity_entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safety. Description adds that results are 'newest-first' and describes entry fields (type, content, timestamps), providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what it does, ordering, fields returned, and when to use alternatives. No redundant or unnecessary wording. Front-loaded with core purpose.

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?

For a list tool with no output schema, it adequately describes return values (type, content, timestamps) and ordering. It distinguishes from sibling tools. However, it lacks information on pagination parameters and whether opportunityId is required, leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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?

Only 25% of parameters have schema descriptions (embed). The description does not explain the meaning or usage of 'opportunityId', 'page', or 'perPage', despite 'opportunityId' being implied by context. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving agents underinformed about the input schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'List timeline entries...for an opportunity.' It specifies the resource and verb, and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning alternatives for party/project timelines. No ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to answer 'what's the latest on deal X?'' and provides specific alternatives: 'For party or project timelines, use list_party_entries or list_project_entries respectively.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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