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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds the not_found error behavior for nonexistent or invisible activities and a security warning about untrusted CRM field values. This enriches the behavioral model significantly.

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, front-loaded with the core functionality, followed by the critical updatedAt note and a security warning. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 get-by-id tool, the description covers the key purpose, error condition, and security note. It does not describe the full return structure beyond updatedAt, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has 50% coverage; only workspaceId has a description. The tool description does not explain the id parameter beyond what is inferred from the tool name. Since the description does not compensate for the missing id semantics, parameter meaning is under-specified.

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 clearly states the tool returns a single activity viewable by the user, distinguishing it from list_activities. It also explicitly mentions the updatedAt field's role in downstream operations, which ties the purpose to concrete use cases.

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 explicitly notes that the returned updatedAt is needed as expectedUpdatedAt for update_activity, complete_activity, and delete_activity, giving clear guidance for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for most agents.

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