get_activities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that pagination defaults to start=0, limit=20, which is not present in the schema. It says nothing about maximum limits, ordering, or result shape, so it clears the lower annotated bar but adds little.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no filler, which is efficient, and the default values are front-loaded. But the brevity comes from under-specification rather than discipline, so it only reaches adequacy.

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?

For a listing tool with no output schema and no annotation detail about returns, the description should explain what is listed, in what order, and how it relates to the date-filtered siblings. Only the default paging values are covered, leaving the agent unable to call this confidently versus its alternatives.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and it does supply the only semantic content available: default values for both start and limit. However, it omits units, maximums, and whether limit is capped, so the compensation is partial.

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 never states what the tool does; it only supplies pagination defaults. The name get_activities implies a listing of activities, but the text itself contains no verb+resource statement and does nothing to distinguish it from get_activities_by_date, get_activities_for_date, or get_last_activity.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all, despite many near-identical siblings (get_activities_by_date, get_activities_for_date, count_activities, get_last_activity). Nothing tells the agent which of these to pick or under what conditions.

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