growsurf_get_participant_activity_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so no contradiction. The description adds behavioral details: results are most recent first, offset acts as a cursor, and campaignId defaults to an environment variable. This enriches the agent's understanding of the operation's behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by pagination and campaign targeting details. No redundancy or filler. Each 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?

The description covers participant identification, sort order, pagination semantics including the response offset as cursor, and campaign targeting. The presence of an output schema means return values needn't be described. This is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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% (only campaignId has a description). The description compensates by explaining limit constraints (1-100, default 20), offset usage (skips logs), and how to identify the participant (by ID or email). It also clarifies the role of campaignId with a default. This adds 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('participant's activity logs') with identification methods (ID or email) and sort order. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like growsurf_get_participant and growsurf_get_participant_analytics by naming the exact resource type.

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?

Provides clear operational context: how to identify the participant (ID or email), pagination parameters and defaults, and campaign targeting behavior. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools to avoid, leaving some inference to the agent, but the guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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