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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool fetches and returns activity data, which implies a read operation, and mentions the types of activities included. However, it does not disclose return structure, pagination behavior, ordering, or any access requirements.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds return-value context. Every sentence earns its place and the length is appropriate.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and filter options, and notes the return content. However, it omits practical details like default limits, ordering, and result shape, which the agent would need to fully handle the response.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description references the optional filter dimensions (market, condition, time range) but does not add syntax, parameter-specific details, or examples beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific action ('Fetches activity data') with a specific resource ('for a specific user') and distinguishes the tool by naming the returned event types (MERGES, SPLITS, REDEEMS). This is enough to differentiate from siblings like dome_trade_history or dome_wallet.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need a user's activity with optional filtering by market, condition, and time range. However, it does not provide explicit exclusions or mention alternative tools when a different kind of data is needed.

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