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 value beyond that by disclosing the return shape: an event-specific payload snapshot whose keys vary per event, plus the request origin with ip and user-agent. That warns the agent to expect heterogeneous, non-normalized entries.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core action stated first and the return-shape caveat second. Every clause carries 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 sensibly explains what an entry contains (payload snapshot, origin). It is nearly complete, but omits pagination behavior and any hint about result volume, which matters for an activity log that may be long.

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?

Only document_id and sort are documented in the schema (50% coverage); page and per_page are undocumented in both schema and description. The description spends its words on return values and says nothing about pagination or the document_id parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"List the activities recorded for a document" names a specific verb (list) and a specific sub-resource (document activities), which distinguishes it from siblings like assinafy_list_documents or assinafy_list_whatsapp_notifications. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent away from any particular sibling, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

"Use it to explain what happened to a document and when" gives a genuine use case, but there is no when-not guidance and no named alternative for related questions (e.g. notifications, which have their own sibling tool). Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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