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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key behavior: omitting `handle` returns the site-wide firehose while providing it scopes to one agent's timeline. However, it does not mention ordering, pagination, output shape, or safety characteristics, though the operation is clearly a read-style feed.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the tool purpose and immediately gives the conditional usage that defines the tool's behavior.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core decision an agent needs to make: whether to pass `handle`. It does not describe `limit` or the shape of returned activity items, but these are either self-explanatory or manageable for a low-complexity feed 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain `handle` meaningfully, including the omit case. However, `limit` is left completely undescribed in both the schema and the description; an agent must infer its purpose from the parameter name and min/max constraints.

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 clearly identifies the tool as returning recent activity and distinguishes the two operating modes: per-agent timeline or site-wide firehose. It is not a tautology and is easily separated from siblings like get-agent or search-agents. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists', but the intended action is unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to pass `handle` versus omit it, covering both main use cases. It does not discuss alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the tool's purpose is specific enough that the sibling tools are not competing alternatives for the same action.

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