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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: chronological ordering (newest first), the scope of recorded actors, and that system-originated actions ('what Ringske sent by itself') are included — details the annotations cannot convey.

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-loads the resource and ordering, then event types, then usage questions — a logical progression with no filler. Slightly long but every clause carries either scope or intent information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing what the returned lines represent (actor, action, entity, recency), which is enough for an agent to call and interpret results. All three optional parameters are covered by the schema, so nothing critical 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 coverage is 100% and both days and limit are documented inline, with the topic enum spelled out per area, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter meaning such as default behavior or how filters combine, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names the resource (the logbook / "Logboek" page) and its shape: 'who did what, newest first', then enumerates the kinds of events (partner adding/removing guests, invitations, cards, task ticks, vendor bookings, guest answers, system actions). An agent knows this is an activity feed rather than a data lookup, though no sibling is named for contrast.

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?

Gives concrete trigger questions ('did Moya already invite Aunt Rita?', 'what happened this week?') that map cleanly onto history/audit intent. It does not state when NOT to use it or point to alternatives such as get-guest or get-rsvp-summary for current state, leaving that inference to the agent.

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