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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: summary counts are preview SAMPLE counts that must be compared to the sampled figure, and scheduled runs dominate newest events on hourly feeds. These caveats materially change how an agent would interpret results, though return format/pagination is not covered.

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 what an event contains, then usage, then caveats – a sensible order. It runs slightly long and the actor/action enumeration is dense, but nearly every sentence carries decision-relevant 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?

There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of event fields (actor type, action verbs, feed, summary) is doing necessary work in telling the agent what it will get back. Combined with the sampling caveat, an agent has enough to call and interpret it, though exact response shape remains implicit.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the actorTypes tradeoff (skip scheduled runs to see human/agent changes) but adds no syntax or ordering detail beyond what the schema already documents, and says nothing new about limit.

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 ('the workspace's recent activity: who did what and when') and enumerates the event shape (actor, action, feed, summary), which makes the scope unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_audit_findings, which is the most likely source of confusion.

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 when-to-use guidance ('check what changed lately, or what you and others have already done, before acting again') plus a tactical instruction to pass actorTypes on hourly-feed workspaces. It stops short of naming an alternative tool and the condition that would select it.

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