get_watch_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the returned content types and receipts and implies a read-only aggregation, but it does not state side effects, prerequisites such as an existing watchlist, refresh behavior, or what 'receipts' means.

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 one front-loaded sentence that immediately states what the tool returns, followed by a compact usage cue. There is no filler, repetition of schema, or annotation information.

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's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the output categories and intended question. It is slightly incomplete because 'receipts' is undefined and watchlist behavior is not explained, but it remains sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

The only parameter, 'days', is fully described in the schema with default and maximum values; the description adds no additional parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a distinct resource ('competitors the user is watching') and concrete output categories ('new ads, proven winners (30+ days), organic outliers') plus 'receipts'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_my_competitor_ads and search_competitor_ads by scoping to the user's watchlist.

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 prescribes a use case: 'Use for "what are my competitors doing lately?"'. It gives clear context but does not mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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