get_target_account_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the operation as a read that returns specific data fields, and it reveals the technical requirement of BigQuery mode. It does not disclose any limitations, rate limits, or data freshness, which would be beneficial for transparency.

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 concise with two sentences that front-load the main action and data points. It avoids unnecessary details and gets to the point quickly.

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 of the data (multiple metrics across time periods) and the lack of an output schema, the description should clarify the return structure. While it lists data points, it does not indicate if the output is a time series or aggregated, and it does not explain the relationship between the lookback_days parameter and the timeframes mentioned. The tool has only 2 parameters, so the description could be more complete.

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 parameter descriptions for 'company_domain' but none for 'lookback_days'. The tool description mentions timeframes but does not explicitly link them to the 'lookback_days' parameter or explain how it controls the output. This leaves the optional parameter's role ambiguous.

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 states it returns daily activity history for a specific target account and lists the specific data points included. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_target_account_funnel or get_company_engagement, so the purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is implicit.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool for building engagement charts or briefing sales reps, and it notes the prerequisite of BigQuery mode. It does not provide guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, but the use cases given are clear.

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