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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'private' qualifier and historical scope, but it does not disclose pagination, sorting, or how multiple scope IDs interact.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. 'Selected project' is a slightly awkward way to name the project scope, but the sentence remains easy to scan and every phrase contributes meaning.

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 that this is a simple read-only list tool, annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists, the description covers the core purpose. The main completeness gap is the ambiguous relationship among project_id, deal_id, and person_id, plus unstated limit behavior, though the schema's required field mitigates some of this.

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?

With 0% schema-description coverage, the description partially compensates by mapping person_id to 'contact', deal_id to 'deal', and project_id to 'project.' It does not explain the limit parameter or clarify that project_id is required while deal_id and person_id are optional, or whether exactly one scope must be selected.

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 uses a specific action verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('CRM activity history'), and names the three scopes ('contact, deal, or selected project'). This clearly distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like crm.log_activity and entity-profile tools like crm.get_contact or crm.get_lead.

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 the tool is for retrieving activity history, so an agent can infer when to call it, but it never states when not to use it or names an alternative. It lacks explicit exclusions or routing conditions, which matters given siblings like crm.log_activity.

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