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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds the sort order, per-tab population behavior, and the semantic difference between lastSource 'web' vs 'mcp'. It also discloses the connection requirement, which is actionable context beyond the structured annotations.

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?

The description is compact yet information-dense, with the core purpose first and supporting details about tabs, return semantics, and auth following in a logical order. Every sentence contributes distinct information without redundancy.

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?

The output schema covers return structure, so the description's focus on auth requirements, tab population, and lastSource semantics fills the remaining gaps. An agent can determine when to call it and what behavior to expect for each kind value.

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 parameters are documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by detailing what each kind tab returns, clarifying the default 'all' behavior, and explaining the meaning of fields like lastSource, going beyond the schema's enum labels.

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?

The description opens with 'List the authenticated user's own activity, most recent first,' a specific verb and resource that clearly differentiates it from sibling search/get tools for legal text and decisions. It further defines the three activity tabs, so an agent can identify this as the activity-list tool at a glance.

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?

It explains the kind parameter's tab selection and states that only requested tabs are populated, giving clear operational context. It also notes the account prerequisite and points the url field toward chaining into get_decision, though it does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool versus siblings.

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