customer_detection_activity_log_entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does state that the operation is a 'query' (implying read-only), and the example shows pagination-related variables (after, first) which hints at cursor-based fetching. However, it doesn't disclose required permissions, how the response is shaped, potential side effects, or rate limits. The coverage is minimal and mostly implicit.

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 concise (one sentence plus an example), but the structure is a bit scatter-shot: it starts with 'Detections · query ...', then lists variables, then provides an example. The variable list is redundant with the schema, and the example is helpful but not integrated into a coherent explanation. It earns a pass for brevity but not for clarity.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, so the description must compensate by explaining what the tool returns and how to use all parameters. It only partially does so: the example covers most but not all parameters (customer_slug is omitted), and there is no description of the return value or expected response structure. The 'Detections' prefix gives a hint of domain context, but overall it's incomplete for an agent to invoke 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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by providing a concrete example that clarifies the meaning of 'after' as a cursor, 'filter' with types and user, and 'order' with direction and orderBy. This adds semantic value, though not all parameters (e.g., customer_slug) are explained in the example or narrative.

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 says 'query customerDetectionActivityLogEntry' which essentially restates the tool name, adding only the verb 'query'. It doesn't explain what an activity log entry is, what it returns, or how it differs from the sibling tool customer_detection_activity_log_entries (plural). This is borderline tautological and lacks clear purpose beyond 'perform a query'.

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 like customer_detection_activity_log_entries or customer_detection. No context about use cases, prerequisites, or typical scenarios is provided, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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