get_recent_activity

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the description earns credit for adding the non-obvious constraints: results are capped to the consent window of the last 28 days and returned newest-first. The epoch-millisecond time format also preempts a common misinterpretation. It stops short of explaining pagination behaviour or whether the 28-day cap truncates offset paging.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the scope and ordering constraint front-loaded before the event-type enumeration. Every clause carries information the agent needs to call it correctly.

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?

Output schema and annotations are present and the parameter schema is fully documented, so the description only needs to supply the temporal scope and ordering, which it does. The one residual gap is how the 28-day cap interacts with limit/offset paging for an agent trying to page back further.

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%, including an explicit warning that resource_name values are undocumented — so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline of 3 is met. The description's 'newest first' framing does add ordering semantics that bear directly on how limit/offset behave, slightly above baseline.

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 and resource ('Get the user's LinkedIn activity') and enumerates the four event types covered plus the 28-day scope and newest-first ordering. It does not name the siblings it differs from (list_posts, search_messages), so an agent must infer how this aggregated feed relates to those narrower 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 'since consent (last 28 days)' framing implies this is the cross-cutting recent-feed view, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative routing is given despite obvious siblings like list_posts and search_messages. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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