get_contacts_tracking_logsevents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces read-only by stating 'READ-ONLY' and 'Makes no changes', but adds no significant behavioral details beyond the HTTP method. It does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or error conditions, which would be valuable. Since annotations cover safety, the description adds minimal value.

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 brief but contains redundancy: 'Get Contact's Tracking Logs/Events' appears twice, and 'Fetches data. Makes no changes to your ActiveCampaign account' is somewhat redundant with the read-only annotation. It could be more concise without losing clarity.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters including nested objects (orders, filters) and no output schema, yet the description does not explain the response format or how to use pagination/filtering effectively. While the tool is simple, additional context on results structure or iteration would improve completeness.

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 the schema already describes parameters adequately. The description does not add any extra meaning or usage tips for parameters like limit, offset, orders, or filters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description adds no additional value beyond the schema.

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 the tool's verb and resource: 'Get Contact's Tracking Logs/Events'. It directly says 'Fetches data' and 'Get a log of events for a Contact', making the purpose unambiguous. Among siblings, many are read operations on contacts, but this one is specific to tracking logs/events, distinguishing it adequately.

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 indicates it is read-only and makes no changes, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like retrieve_contact_tracking_logs or retrieve_contact_logs. Usage context is implied through the resource name but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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