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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds the bulk support behavior (accepts ids) and the endpoint path, but does not disclose details like pagination, limits, or what happens if the lead does not exist. Since annotations provide the core behavioral traits, the description adds some context but not comprehensive transparency.

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 two sentences: one explaining the primary function with the endpoint, and one noting bulk support. It is concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. It earns its place but could add a bit more on parameter usage if needed.

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?

Given that the tool has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations cover safety, the description is minimally viable but lacks details on pagination, filtering options, and how bulk execution works (e.g., response structure). The complexity is moderate; the description covers the endpoint and bulk support but not enough for a fully informed agent selection.

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%, meaning the description does not explain the parameters, but the schema lists 'id', 'ids', 'query', and 'account'. The description only mentions 'id' in the endpoint and 'ids' for bulk support. It does not clarify the meaning of 'query' or 'account'. With low coverage, the description could compensate but does not sufficiently do so; however, the tool has only 4 parameters and required one is obvious, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves activities for a lead via a specific REST endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like datacrazy_activities_list (which lists activities generally) by focusing on lead-specific activities. The verb 'Buscar' (search/get) is specific, and the endpoint is explicit.

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 mentions 'Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution', which gives some usage guidance, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling datacrazy_activities_list or other lead-related tools. It implies usage for fetching activities of a specific lead, but no clear context or exclusions are provided.

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