List activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context: results are newest first, each entry is attributed to the token that performed the action, and the scope is recent account-level events. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two sentences carry all the essential information with no filler. The first sentence defines the output and ordering, and the second provides actionable use cases, keeping the definition tight and front-loaded.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the ordering, the attribution, and when to use it. An agent has enough detail to invoke and interpret 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%; the only parameter, limit, is fully documented with range, default, and ordering semantics. The description does not add extra parameter nuance, but none is needed given the schema's completeness.

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 names a specific resource ('actions on the account') and enumerates the kinds of activity covered: moves, reconnects, rotations, renames, and token creation. It also clarifies ordering and attribution, so an agent can distinguish it from the device/location/account siblings, none of which are audit-style tools.

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 gives explicit use cases: answering 'what changed?' and auditing an assistant's actions. It does not state exclusions or alternative tools, but no sibling serves the same purpose, so the explicit context is sufficient.

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