customer_detection_activity_log_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It hints at read-only behavior through 'query' and pagination via 'after' and 'first', but it doesn't explicitly state that it's a read-only operation, discuss rate limits, or describe what the response contains. The description fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the obvious query nature.

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 short but not well-structured; it's a single template fragment with a cut-off JSON example. It front-loads the operation name but the value is limited by the abrupt truncation, making it less readable than it could be.

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 explain what the query returns, but it doesn't. The tool has 5 parameters and nested objects, but the description only provides an incomplete variable example. It lacks behavioral context, return value details, and pagination semantics, making it insufficient for an agent to use confidently.

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 adds value with a concrete example showing the nested structure of 'filter' (activityLogType, bulkJobId, customerDetectionId, etc.) and 'order', which goes beyond the bare 'GraphQL: *' type descriptions. The example is truncated but still helpful.

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 'query customerDetectionActivityLogEntries', which is a verb+resource, but it doesn't explain what an activity log entry is or what the query returns. It reads more like a code template than a functional description, and it doesn't distinguish from the singular sibling 'customer_detection_activity_log_entry'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The example variables imply filtering by bulk job or detection ID, but there's no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It's a bare query template.

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