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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: default ordering 'Newest due first', a hard cap of 'limit is at most 50', and a security warning that CRM field values are untrusted user content that must be treated as data, not instructions. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main action and filters appear in the first sentence, followed by ordering/limit constraints, then a relevant security note. Every sentence carries useful information; there is no fluff or 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 read-only list operation with nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the resource set, filter categories, default ordering, limit cap, and a security caveat. It does not spell out the exact return shape or pagination, but the operation is simple enough that these omissions are not critical.

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 description coverage is only 11%, so the description must compensate for the 9-parameter schema. It does add useful gloss: 'mine' is explained as 'assigned to you', and dueFrom/dueTo are grouped as a 'due window'. However, it leaves sortDirection, workspaceId, and some filter semantics to the schema, so the compensation is only partial.

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 'Lists tasks, calls, meetings and emails you may view' – a specific read verb plus the exact resource set. It also names the main filter dimensions, making it clearly distinguishable from singular get_activity or mutating siblings like create_activity and complete_activity.

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 establishes clear usage context: a filtered listing of activities the caller may view, with optional filters by type, status, due window, linked record, or assigned-to-me. It does not explicitly name alternatives like search or get_activity, but the intended scope is clear and no exclusions are needed.

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