Get recent DNS activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond those flags: the need for Full Analytics, the sensitive nature of the data, and the fact that 'results are not stored' – all useful behavioral details not visible in annotations.

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?

Two terse sentences front-load the core purpose and then add a high-value caveat about permissions and data persistence. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant filler, repetition of the title, or schema boilerplate.

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 five optional parameters, no output schema, and no parameter-level guidance in the description, the tool is only partially complete for autonomous invocation. The annotations and the two-line description adequately cover safety and prerequisites, but an agent would need to infer the semantics of limit, minutes, endpointId, and blockedOnly from names alone, which is a notable gap.

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 only 20% (only 'search' has a description), yet the tool description does not compensate by explaining any of the five parameters. The names limit, minutes, endpointId, blockedOnly are partially self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning for them, leaving semantic gaps for an agent trying to construct correct calls.

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 begins with 'Read recent Control D activity' – a specific verb targeting a specific resource with a clear scope ('recent'), distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_profiles or list_endpoints. The second sentence adds a critical qualifier about Full Analytics, further clarifying which kind of activity logs are involved.

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 states that 'Activity logs require Full Analytics and are sensitive', implying this tool should only be used when the user has that entitlement. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus sibling tools such as diagnose_recent_blocks or list_endpoints, leaving the agent to infer that this is the raw activity-log reader.

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