get_company_activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states what types of events are included but doesn't describe response format, pagination, ordering, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether this is a real-time or historical feed. 'Get' implies read-only, but this isn't explicitly stated.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place by specifying the resource and providing concrete examples. No redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the activity events come in, whether results are paginated, what fields are included, or how this differs from other employee-related tools. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides about date filtering and limits. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have explained how parameters interact (e.g., date range required).

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 clearly states the verb 'get' and resource 'company activity events' with specific examples (employee changes, onboarding, offboarding). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like get_company or get_employee by focusing on activity events rather than static data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from list_* tools that might also retrieve activity-related data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like list_employees, search_employees, and get_employee, there's no indication whether this tool is for historical events versus current state, or how it relates to leave-related tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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