List company activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that it uses GET and requires board_or_agent authorization. This is minimal but consistent. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, or content of the activity list, which would be valuable.

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 very concise with three sentences, front-loaded with the essential purpose. No unnecessary words. However, it could include more helpful context (e.g., parameter info) without becoming verbose.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, output schema exists), the description together with annotations and schema provides a minimal but functional set of information. However, the lack of parameter semantics and usage guidance leaves gaps that could hinder correct invocation.

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 0% description coverage and the description provides no information about the 'companyId' parameter. The agent must rely on the parameter name and nested structure. With no param details in the description, this is a significant gap.

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 title 'List company activity' and description clearly state the verb (list) and resource (company activity). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like pc_get_companies_by_company_id_timeline or the POST version pc_post_companies_by_company_id_activity, which may also deal with activity listings. The description provides the API route and authorization class, adding context but not clarifying scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include both a GET and POST activity tool, as well as timeline tools, but the description offers no explicit context or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and endpoint.

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