list_activity

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent read in a closed world, so the description adds value with ordering ('newest first'), the paging window ceiling (offset + limit up to 1000), and the fact that the response signals whether more events exist. That last point is real behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations, though it stops short of describing result shape or defaults in detail.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose then usage then paging caveat. No filler, and the most important operational warning (don't conclude nothing happened) lands last where it is memorable.

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 correctly compensates by stating that the response indicates whether more events exist. All six parameters are documented in the schema and the description covers the pagination model, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it explains the combined offset+limit ceiling of 1000 (a constraint not expressed in the schema, which only caps limit at 100), and frames offset/since/post_id as paging and narrowing levers for this feed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List recent activity and publish events for posts') and enumerates the event kinds covered (status changes, publish attempts, failures, retries). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_posts or list_jobs, which deal with content rather than event streams.

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 explicit usage context ('Use this as the agent notifications feed') and prescriptive guidance on pagination and narrowing before concluding there is no more data. It does not name a sibling alternative or state when NOT to use it, which keeps it short of a 5.

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