search_activity

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-like search over selected fields but does not explain matching behavior, result ordering, pagination, or what 'ya redactado' means operationally. This leaves important behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. It wastes no words, though the phrase 'sobre lo ya redactado' is ambiguous and slightly undermines the clarity.

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 output schema exists, return values do not need to be explained, but the description still fails to clarify parameter usage and scope. For a search tool with three parameters and zero schema descriptions, this is not enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly without guessing.

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%, and the description does not explain the `kind` or `limit` parameters at all. It adds context about searchable fields, but an agent still cannot determine how `kind` constrains the search or how `limit` affects results.

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 action ('Busca texto') and names the searched fields: title, body, app, and contact. However, the resource being searched ('lo ya redactado') is vague, and the description does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like get_activity or get_events.

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 is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_activity, get_events, or get_conversation. The description implies a text-search use case but never states when it is appropriate or not.

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