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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: sort order (most recent first), pagination mechanics, and that the response offset is the next-page cursor (null at end). However, it doesn't cover auth requirements or rate limits.

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?

Three compact sentences, appropriately front-loaded with the core action and lookup keys, then pagination details, then campaign targeting. Every sentence carries useful information, though the pagination and targeting could be marginally tighter.

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 paginated read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description suffices: it explains ordering, pagination cursor semantics, lookup keys, and campaign targeting defaults. It needn't detail return values since an output schema exists.

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 only 20% (only campaignId is documented), so the description must compensate. It does: it explains limit range (1-100, default 20), offset semantics (skips logs), and the campaignId fallback to GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID. It adds real meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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+resource: 'List a participant's activity logs' with the lookup key (participant ID or email) and ordering. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like growsurf_get_participant or growsurf_get_participant_analytics, which return different data about the same entity.

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 usage through the ID-or-email lookup and campaign targeting, but it never states when to use this tool versus gets like get_participant or get_participant_analytics. It provides context but no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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