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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds ordering (newest-first) and scope (whole project) that annotations cannot express; it stops short of describing the row shape or actor fields.

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?

One front-loaded sentence gives purpose, ordering and scope, followed by filters and the sibling redirect. No filler and nothing buried.

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 should hint at what a row contains; it only implies a feed of activity events. Still, purpose, filters, ordering and the alternative are all covered, so an agent can call it 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 coverage is already 80%, and the description adds value by giving example filter values (STORY_STATUS_CHANGED, STORY_UPDATED) and enum-like entity types (story/defect/sprint/epic) that the schema only gestures at. It does not mention the limit parameter or default page size, leaving a small gap.

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 recent activity), the scope (whole project, newest-first), and explicitly contrasts with the per-story sibling stride.list_story_activity. An agent can pick between the two without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage framing ("what changed / what moved to Done this week") and an explicit routing rule: for a single story's feed use stride.list_story_activity. Use and alternative are both named.

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