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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior beyond them: newest-first ordering, a fixed 50-item page, and the cursor-paging contract via nextBefore.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what the log contains and how results are ordered, then filter and paging mechanics. Every clause earns its place with no 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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the ordering, page size, filter dimensions, and cursor source are all disclosed; annotations carry the safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 only loosely maps fields to filters ('teammate' → actor, 'action', 'dates' → from/to) and adds the minor fact that nextBefore originates from a reply, but no syntax or format detail beyond the 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?

States a specific resource and scope: 'Who changed what in the workspace' with ordering ('newest first') and page size. It's clearly the audit-log reader, distinct from the similarly named get_activity, though it never names a sibling to explicitly delimit the boundary.

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?

Tells the agent how to narrow results ('filter by teammate, action or dates') and the exact way to page backwards ('pass nextBefore from a reply'). It gives clear operational context but no when-not-to-use or alternative-tool guidance.

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