Get Participant Activity Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: the response `offset` acts as the next-page cursor and is null when exhausted, and campaign resolution falls back to an env var. Missing only things like log retention or rate limits.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by pagination mechanics and the campaign fallback. No filler, though the pagination and defaulting details make it slightly packed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, yet the description still clarifies the pagination cursor semantics that agents would otherwise have to infer. Combined with the low schema coverage it covers enough for correct invocation; a brief note on what an activity log entry contains would close the remaining gap.

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 coverage is only 20%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it documents the 1-100 limit range with a default of 20, the offset skip behavior, the ID-or-email alternative for identifying the participant, and campaign targeting. Only the participantId/participantEmail format details remain thin.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List a participant's activity logs'), names the two accepted lookup keys (participant ID or email), and specifies ordering ('most recent first') and pagination model. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like growsurf_get_participant or growsurf_get_participant_analytics.

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 explains the campaignId fallback to GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID, which is useful context for invocation, but gives no explicit guidance on when to reach for this tool versus growsurf_get_participant or growsurf_get_participant_analytics. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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