Activiteitenlog van een board

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a non-obvious API trait: activity is offered per board, not per item, and requires client-side filtering. It also states the output substance (status changes and who worked). It does not cover pagination or output format, but the schema already documents limit defaults.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core function and output content, and the second delivers the essential filtering caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only activity-list tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers the core operational need: what it returns, the board scope, the time period, and the filtering caveat. It could be slightly more explicit about the response shape, but that is not a significant blocker.

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 the schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description adds thematic context about 'periode' and 'board' but does not need to repeat parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Geeft') and resource ('item-activiteiten op een board binnen een periode') and clarifies exactly what kind of data is returned: status changes and who worked on items. It also distinguishes itself from per-item tools by explicitly noting Teamhood exposes this per board, not per item.

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 clear context: use this to retrieve board-level item activity within a date period. It also provides an important usage caveat — filter the results yourself for a specific item — which helps an agent avoid expecting per-item granularity. It does not name an alternative sibling tool, but the guidance is sufficient for correct selection.

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