search_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates this is a search operation, which implies read-only, and adds useful context like 'ingested' data and FTS5. It does not explicitly state non-mutating behavior or edge cases, but overall is transparent for a search tool.

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 appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool. It opens with a one-sentence purpose, then uses a clear, structured Args list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff.

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 complexity (5 params, 1 required), the description covers all parameters, usage context, and a special case. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The tool context and sibling names are clear from the description.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter in plain language, provides examples for date formats, enumerates allowed product values, and specifies limits/defaults. This is exactly the needed semantic enrichment.

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 ('Search the user's ingested Google activity by keyword'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_activity_stats and get_db_info. It also notes 'full-text' search, clarifying the method.

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?

Provides explicit context for using the tool, including a specific scenario ('Use empty string with filters to list recent activity'). However, it does not compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool, such as when statistics or database info would be more appropriate.

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