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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: each entry includes an event-specific payload snapshot with variable keys and request origin metadata (ip, user-agent), which tells the agent what to expect from the response shape.

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 with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and each following sentence earns its place by describing the payload and origin details.

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 carries the burden of return-value context, and it partially does so by characterizing the payload snapshot and origin fields. It stops short of covering ordering, pagination, or volume of entries, which are minor gaps for a read-only list tool.

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% for the single document_id parameter, so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds nothing about document_id semantics, format, or scoping, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'List the activities recorded for a document.' The 'activities' resource is distinct from sibling tools like get_document, show_document, and list_documents, so an agent can differentiate it, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 an implied usage context, which is better than nothing. However, it offers no when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and does not point to alternatives such as verify_document or get_document for related audit information.

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