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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: mode semantics (exact = verbatim, hybrid = ranked by meaning) and the undocumented fact that hybrid is the DEFAULT, the fields returned per item, and the caveat that summaries are excerpts requiring get_activity for the full body.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with what is searched, then intents, then ranking behavior, then return shape – every sentence earns its place. The enumeration in sentence one is dense but load-bearing, so structure is strong without being padded.

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 nine-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the description supplies the essential search semantics and even explains return shape despite an output schema existing. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it leaves limit/pagination bounds and the all-required-quirks of the schema undocumented.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It meaningfully covers the scoping params (record, actor, type, date range) and the mode enum semantics, but omits the limit parameter and its max of 25, the maxLength on query, and does not clarify that all nine parameters are required or how nulls act as defaults.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Searches history') and enumerates exactly what is searched (notes, comments, calls, meetings, emails, messages, timeline updates) plus the scoping dimensions. It also names the related sibling get_activity for full bodies, so the agent can distinguish this search tool from the read-one-activity tool without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use intents ('what did we discuss', 'when did we last contact', 'who said X') and routes to the alternative get_activity when a full body is needed. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance, e.g. how it differs from search_records or search_candidates, so it does not reach a full 5.

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