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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile, so the description's addition of 'Current RMS: GET /activities' is consistent but minimal. The description does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, authentication needs, or return format. With annotations carrying the read-only signal, this is adequate but adds little behavioral context beyond the 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 front-loaded with purpose and then moves efficiently to filtermode and a filter example. The example is the longest element but earns its place by illustrating the complex filter syntax. There is no redundant or empty filler.

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 the tool's complexity (8 params, nested filters object, no required params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, filtermode, and a high-value filter example. The schema already documents all parameters thoroughly, so the description need not repeat them. It leaves out return shape and pagination behavior, which are minor gaps without an output schema, keeping it just short of complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining filtermode and by providing a concrete multi-key filter example (time_status_eq, starts_at_lt, ends_at_gteq, participants_member_id_eq) that demonstrates how to combine predicates for a realistic query. This adds useful semantic meaning, especially for the nested filters object, though it does not clarify all eight parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List activities') and clarifies the scope by enumerating what counts as an activity (calls, meetings, tasks, notes) and the entities they are logged against (members, opportunities, projects). This makes it distinguishable from siblings like list_members or list_opportunities, though it does not explicitly name any alternative. A solid 4: clear and specific, but without explicit sibling routing.

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 gives the filtermode options and a concrete example filter for 'one person's busy time', which implies a useful usage context. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_activity or other list endpoints, nor does it provide exclusions. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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