getLaunchpoolUserActivityLog

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

Annotations already mark the operation as readOnly, and the description adds useful behavioral constraints beyond that, such as 'startTime and endTime must be provided together as 13-digit ms timestamps' and 'paginated by page number.' It does not contradict the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint 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?

The description is relatively compact and front-loaded, with the core behavior in the first sentence and useful use-case guidance in the second paragraph. There is some repetition between 'staking operation history' and the agent hint, but not enough to make it confusing.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the tool's purpose, type mappings, and timestamp requirement, but leaves status values, pageSize, current, and return-shape expectations under-specified. The schema's min/max/defaults help, but the description itself still has gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of type ('type=0 for pledges, type=1 for manual redemptions, type=2 for interest credits') and the time-range coupling, but it does not explain status values, stakeCoin format, or the precise semantics of current/pageSize beyond 'paginated by page number.'

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 first sentence states a clear verb and resource: 'Returns the authenticated user's Launchpool staking operation history, paginated by page number.' It also lists the filter dimensions. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like getLaunchpoolUserHistory or getLaunchpoolUserCurrentStaking, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives concrete usage context: 'AI agent can use this to show a user their staking transaction history or investigate specific operation types such as pledges or redemptions.' The agent hint reinforces when to use it, but it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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