get_member_activity

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

Annotations indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds crucial behavioral context: 'Returns 404 error if the member does not exist in the audience.' This is beyond annotations and helps the agent handle errors. No contradiction with 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?

Description is concise (8 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance, error behavior, and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Structure is logical and easy to parse.

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 an output schema, the description still provides a succinct summary of the return JSON structure. It covers all necessary aspects: purpose, alternative tools, error handling, and parameter details. An agent can reliably invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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 thoroughly explains all three main parameters: list_id (format, example, how to obtain), email_address (must exist in audience), and count (range, default). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema. The fourth parameter 'account' is missing but defaults to null and is less critical.

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 starts with a clear verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('member's email interaction history'), specifying scope ('opens, clicks, bounces across all campaigns'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools get_member_events and get_member_tags, making purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Shows email actions only') and when not to, providing alternative tools (get_member_events, get_member_tags). Also recommends using search_members first to find the audience, giving a clear workflow.

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