List recent read activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the cursor-based incremental fetch behavior and clarifies the event stream types, which is valuable context beyond the annotation. No contradictions observed. This exceeds the baseline 3.

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 just two sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then immediately gives a practical use case. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 a rich input schema, an output schema, and annotations, the description's addition of cursor semantics and polling use cases makes the tool sufficiently complete. It does not elaborate on error conditions or output structure, but those are partially covered by the output schema. The type-specific cursor constraint is in the schema, so the description's general cursor mention is adequate.

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% for all four parameters, so the schema fully documents each field. The description's mention of event types and polling use case aligns with the 'type' and 'since' parameters but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore the baseline 3 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 clearly identifies the tool as listing recent read activity (view sessions, downloads, gate leads) across EveryPage documents. It specifies the resource and action with enough detail, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like everypage_get_readership, so it misses the full differentiation for a 5.

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 provides explicit use cases: answering 'has anyone read anything today?' or polling for new reads. This gives clear context on when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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