get_chimp_chatter

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context: 'Authenticated via API key. Max 10 concurrent requests. Read-only, safe to retry.' This aligns with annotations and provides additional behavioral details like rate limits, without contradiction.

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 well-structured with clear sections and a bullet-style args list. It is appropriately sized, though 'safe to retry' is slightly redundant given readOnlyHint. Still, every sentence is informative.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters (all optional), an output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter details, and return format summary, leaving no major 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains each parameter thoroughly: count (range 1-1000, default 10), offset (pagination usage), account (naming convention and reference to list_accounts). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool retrieves the account activity feed (Chimp Chatter) of recent events. It uses specific verbs and resource ('retrieve the account activity feed'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing get_campaign_report for single-campaign metrics.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('review chronological stream of account-wide activity') and when not ('use get_campaign_report for metrics on a single campaign instead'). It also provides authentication context and concurrency limits.

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