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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false); the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: the summary is a pre-rendered French sentence, pagination is never date-based because burst events share a second, actorKind's five values are fully explained, actorApiKeyId is conditionally absent, and the private-document exclusion rule is disclosed. The closing 'Modifies nothing' reinforces the read-only annotation rather than contradicting it.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then filters, then pagination, then actor semantics — a sensible order. It is long and occasionally repeats the schema (the cursor-is-not-a-date point appears twice), but nearly every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe what comes back, and it does: the summary sentence, actorKind/actorLabel/actorApiKeyId semantics, and nextCursor for pagination. Combined with the privacy exclusion caveat, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 schema already documents limit, since, cellId, cursor and expectedProjectId in comparable detail; the description's cellId and cursor explanations largely restate them. The actorKind/actorApiKeyId material adds real meaning but describes response fields, not parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource ('Reads the project's ACTIVITY LOG — who created/updated/deleted what, and when') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling it could be confused with, get_schema_overview. An agent can tell what this returns and how it differs from a state-reading tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit routing rule: 'This is the ONLY way to know what changed since a given moment: get_schema_overview shows the CURRENT state, not the history.' It also names the filtering conditions (cellId and/or since) and the pagination path (nextCursor), leaving nothing to inference.

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