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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the entry fields ('who', 'via'), the meaning of 'via' (SwiftProbate app, Grace, ChatGPT), and an anti-hallucination rule to state 'no record' rather than guess. It does not clarify what 'recent' means, how far back the log goes, or the ordering (newest first?), which are relevant behavioral gaps for a log tool.

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 tight sentences: purpose and scope first, output shape second, usage boundary and fallback third. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, return entry shape, and the critical fallback behavior when no record exists. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing, aside from the minor 'recent' window ambiguity.

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 both parameters, including the default limit of 20 and how to obtain the estate_id. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Get the estate's recent activity-log entries') and immediately defines scope ('who changed what, and when'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by saying it is 'not for task or asset contents, which have their own tools,' so an agent can route correctly without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user asks what has changed recently or who did something') and an explicit exclusion ('not for task or asset contents'). It also specifies the fallback when no matching entry exists, leaving almost nothing to inference.

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