get_email_activities

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose any side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or behavior beyond the basic action. The 'FREE' note is ambiguous and not standard.

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 very short, consisting of two brief sentences. While concise, the second sentence 'FREE.' adds little value and could be considered unnecessary. Nonetheless, it is not verbose.

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?

The description mentions the types of activities retrieved but does not describe the return format or structure. Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), it is somewhat complete but lacks details about what the response contains.

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 coverage is 100% with a minimal parameter description ('Emailer message ID'). The tool description does not add any further meaning or context about the parameter, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed.

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 clearly states that the tool retrieves activities (opens, clicks, replies) for a specific outreach email, using the verb 'Get' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_activities which are broader in scope, though the addition of 'FREE' is somewhat extraneous.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_activities or other related tools. The description lacks context about appropriate scenarios or prerequisites.

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