list_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey that this is a read-style listing operation and gives examples of returned event categories, but it omits behavioral details such as auth requirements, rate-limit behavior, ordering, or whether results are limited to a default time range.

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 sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('List events (activity log) in amoCRM'), then states the filters and output content concisely.

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 five optional parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job by explaining what events are shown and how to filter. It falls slightly short of fully complete because there is no output schema and no mention of response shape, pagination behavior beyond the schema defaults, or ordering.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the main filtering parameters (entity type, entity ID, event type) but adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain combinations, precedence, or edge cases.

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 identifies the resource as 'events (activity log)' in amoCRM and the operation as listing them, which is distinct from the sibling tools that list leads, contacts, companies, or tasks. It also communicates the filtering dimensions and examples of the event types returned.

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 implies when to use this tool—when the agent needs an activity log or event history—but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives. There is clear context but no exclusionary guidance relative to sibling tools.

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