List activities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond that — results are 'newest first' — but says nothing about pagination semantics (before/after as cursors) or result volume/size.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and lets the enum-like clause trail. Zero wasted words.

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?

For a 10-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema and no annotations covering pagination, the description should clarify how before/after act as page cursors and roughly what a record contains. As written it is adequate but leaves that gap for the agent to infer.

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 100%, so every parameter including before/after, types, and the min* thresholds is already documented in the schema. The description's 'filtered by type, date range and minimum amounts' merely summarizes what the schema states, adding no syntax or constraint details, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List the channel's activity feed') and enumerates the content types included, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like activities_top or activities_get, which prevents a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives such as activities_top (aggregate stats) or store_redemptions_list. The filter list hints at how to scope results, but the agent gets nothing on which sibling to pick.

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