whooing_account_activity

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the output composition (totals, frequent items, recent entries). It is consistent with the annotation and discloses behavioral traits such as the summary nature. However, it does not explain pagination behavior or API call limits, which are controlled by parameters.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key outputs. No extraneous or redundant information. Every word is necessary.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema) and the existence of the schema descriptions, the description is mostly complete. It covers the main inputs (account, date range) and outputs. A minor gap is that it does not explain the role of pagination parameters, but the schema covers those. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not provide additional semantic meaning for parameters beyond what the schema already offers. It mentions outputs but does not map them to specific parameters.

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 clearly specifies the action ('Summarize activity') and the resource ('one account in a date range') with concrete outputs ('totals, frequent items, recent matching entries'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like whooing_entries (which lists raw entries) and whooing_monthly_summary (which likely aggregates all accounts).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify when not to use it. No mention of prerequisites, limitations, or competing tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name and description.

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