Account activity log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a safe read operation via 'Get'. It says nothing about pagination behavior, default page size, whether results are complete or truncated, or the permissions/auth context (panel, clientKey, applicationKey overrides) needed to call it successfully.

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 short sentence with no filler, so it is not verbose, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. There is no structure to front-load because there is only a bare purpose statement.

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?

This is a 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, including non-trivial overrides (panel, baseUrl, clientKey, applicationKey) that are not mentioned anywhere. Given that complexity, a single-sentence description leaves an agent without enough context to invoke it correctly or interpret its results.

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 78% but the description contributes zero parameter meaning — it never mentions filtering by event, sorting, pagination, or the include option. Notably 'page' has no schema description at all and 'include' is only documented as 'e.g. actor', so the description leaves real ambiguity (e.g. what include values are valid) unaddressed.

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 retrieval verb and the resource ('account activity log'), and the word 'account' implies account-level scope as opposed to the sibling server_activity. However, it adds nothing beyond the title 'Account activity log' other than 'Get', and gives no hint about what the log contains or how it differs from server_activity beyond scope.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as server_activity, or on prerequisites like which panel or API key context is required. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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