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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses rich behavioral details: it is decoded from the task board's own events, includes only successful transactions, covers both directions (sent and paid), and specifies ordering (newest first), pagination (cursor), and unit format (base-unit integer strings). This greatly exceeds what annotations alone convey.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then packs in essential behavioral details without any fluff. Every phrase adds value, and the structure is easy to parse for an agent.

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 the absence of an output schema and the moderate parameter count, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what data is returned, what inputs matter, ordering, pagination, and value formats. No critical information appears missing for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'address' refers to a Wanchain address and that 'cursor' is used for pagination, but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or its default value. This is partial compensation, not full, so a mid-range score 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: retrieving Bridge to Earn activity for a Wanchain address. It precisely enumerates what is included (successful outgoing transactions and incoming payments, with route, source token, amount, and asset movements), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_address_activity or get_bridge_activity.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever Bridge to Earn activity for a specific address is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the specificity of 'Bridge to Earn activity' strongly implies it is the right tool for that niche, while other tools handle general address or bridge activity.

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