Activity feed

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the feed is ordered newest-first and returns per-event records rather than aggregates. It stops short of describing page size, cursoring, or retention windows for the feed.

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?

Four short bolded sections front-load purpose, exclusions, return shape and usage. No filler sentences, and the routing information (which sibling to use instead) appears early rather than buried.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description's 'Returns: a page of individual activity records' adequately sets expectations for a list tool. Safety, scope and alternatives are all covered; the only residual gap is pagination mechanics for the page/limit parameters.

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 33% (only the 'type' param is documented), so the description carries real burden. It partially compensates by listing activity categories that map onto the type filter, but gives no example token format, and page/limit are left entirely unexplained beyond the implied newest-first paging.

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+resource (read the project activity feed) and enumerates the record types (sends, opens, clicks, bounces, complaints) plus ordering (newest first). It explicitly names the two sibling tools that cover adjacent ground, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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 'Not for' section names concrete alternatives (plunk_get_activity_stats for totals, plunk_get_campaign_stats for one campaign) and the 'Use when' section states the selecting condition: investigating what happened to a specific contact or window rather than overall volume. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are explicit.

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