List top 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 no behavioral context beyond that – no return shape, ordering semantics, paging behavior, or auth expectations – so it contributes essentially nothing on top of the structured fields.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity is closer to under-specification than meaningful conciseness.

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 simple read-only ranking tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. It leaves the agent unable to disambiguate from the several sibling top/leaderboard tools, which a fuller description should address.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (type, limit, offset, period, channel) is already documented in the schema. The description's 'cheerers or tippers' and 'for a period' restate the type and period enums without adding syntax or format detail, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('top cheerers or tippers') with the 'for a period' scope qualifier, which an agent can map to the ranking nature of the tool. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like tips_top, tips_leaderboard, or sessions_top, which the agent must resolve unaided.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or exclusion info. Given the crowded sibling set of top/leaderboard tools, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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