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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds only the word 'recent' as a behavioral hint; it does not disclose whether results are paginated, how limit/since affect the response, what activity categories exist, or whether the output is aggregated or raw.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It earns its place as a compact summary, though it could be expanded with more useful details without becoming poorly structured.

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?

Given no output schema, four optional parameters, and a large cluster of similar peer_market_* and peer_indexer_* tools, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the response contains, what values type accepts, how since is interpreted, or which activity the tool refers to, leaving the agent to guess.

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?

The schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the parameters type, limit, since, and params are already documented. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the burden and does so adequately.

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 states a clear verb ('Fetch') and a resource ('recent protocol activity from Peerlytics'), so it is not a tautology. However, 'protocol activity' is broad and does not specify which event types, domains, or metrics are included, and it does not distinguish this tool from closely related siblings such as peer_market_volume, peer_market_deposits, peer_market_intents, or peer_indexer_activities.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions such as 'use for general activity feed' versus 'use peer_market_volume for volume data'.

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