get_user_activity

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe idempotent read, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial domain behavior: month-graining that widens since/until to whole months, the rule that anonymous polls never count, and the stance-row month attribution rule for votes. It also discloses that sample_events are newest items with urls, not a full list.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then required params, then return shape, then the MONTH-GRAINED rules; every clause carries information. It is dense and heavy on terse fragments, but nothing is wasted.

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 four-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return fields (counts, by_group, sample_events), the date-windowing semantics, the counting rules, and where inputs are sourced. An agent has everything needed to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying the source of user_id (list_memberships or a participation row) and the month-widening consequence of since/until. The '1 call each' note on group_ids largely restates 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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieving one person's participation across groups. The '1 call per group + 1' batching detail is distinctive and helps an agent understand the call pattern. It implies but does not explicitly name the contrast with get_participation_report, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 tells the agent where required values come from (user_id from list_memberships or a participation row), which is useful workflow guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this per-user view over the sibling get_participation_report, nor states any exclusions, leaving the when-to-use decision implied.

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