get_agent_activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by noting 'session_bound', 'preparation_only', the receipts API path, and durable receipts. It does not cover pagination or return behavior, but with annotations present the bar is lower.

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 compact and front-loads the core action, followed by filter guidance. The bracketed metadata is dense but brief, and the sentence structure wastes little space.

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 read-only listing tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core resource and two filters. It still does not explain return shape, pagination/limit behavior, or the role of session-related parameters, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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% across six parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It mentions intent_id and receipt status filtering, but omits limit, sessionId, agentAddress, and sessionToken, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 specific verb and resource: 'list durable FarmDash execution receipts.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from nearby siblings such as get_receipt or get_agent_events.

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?

It gives an intended usage context: 'Filter by intent_id and receipt status to review recent agent activity.' However, it does not state when to use this instead of alternatives or mention any exclusions, leaving routing to inference.

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