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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that these are non-appointment billable/NDIS activities and lists the returned fields, but it says nothing about pagination behavior (id_gt/id_lt cursors, next_id_gt), archived-object handling, or result ordering.

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?

A single compact sentence with the distinguishing trait ('Non-appointment billable activities') front-loaded, followed by the field inventory and endpoint. Nothing is redundant or 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?

With no output schema, the field list is genuinely helpful in telling an agent what a record looks like. However, for a paged list tool with cursor parameters, the description omits how to page through results and how include_archived affects output, leaving gaps an agent would hit in practice.

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 all 8 filters (id cursors, start/update ranges, patientId, include_archived) are already documented in the schema. The description's field list describes output attributes rather than filter semantics and adds no format or interaction detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource precisely ('Non-appointment billable activities (NDIS support activities)') and implicitly the list operation via the GET endpoint, and it enumerates the fields (patient, practitioner, service, item code, quantity, price, invoice id). It distinguishes the resource from appointments by calling it 'non-appointment', though it never says 'list' or contrasts with sibling list tools like list_invoices.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs. splose_list_invoices, splose_list_appointments, or splose_get_invoice, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The trailing 'GET /support-activities' is an implementation detail, not usage direction.

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