Read the organization's activity history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only intent through "Read" and "Answers what happened," plus ordering (oldest first), default time window (last 7 days), and data coverage. It does not describe the response envelope or pagination, but the schema already documents limit and cursor, so the gap is minor.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: primary purpose, sibling exclusion, default behavior, filter options, and alternative routing. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded before the filter details.

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 read-only query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what events are returned, who and when is included, ordering, default range, filter dimensions, and which sibling tools to use instead. Pagination details are already in the schema, so nothing essential for invoking the tool is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating actual event type wire names, clarifying that filtering works by member or event type, and implying the meaning of the default since/until window. These details go slightly beyond the bare schema descriptions.

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 opens with "Answers 'what happened'" and clearly identifies the tool as the organization's activity history. It names specific event types and makes the distinction from query_tasks explicit, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool is for.

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?

It explicitly states this is where problems surface, that query_tasks does not contain them, and provides routing to alternatives: use get_activity for a ready-made per-member bundle and query_submissions for ad-hoc reports alone. This gives clear when-to-use and 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.