search_activities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose safety and behavior. It mentions the tool is 'FREE' and 'Undocumented endpoint', giving some insight, but lacks details on rate limits, side effects, or expected response structure. The list of returned activity types is useful.

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 short with three sentences, no redundant information, and gets to the point quickly. The 'UNDOCUMENTED ENDPOINT' note is a quick warning but could be integrated more smoothly.

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 7 parameters without an output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits details about sorting, pagination, response limits, and the structure of returned data, leaving the agent unprepared for invocation.

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 only 43%; the description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Parameters like sort_by_field and pagination are left unexplained, and the description does not clarify their usage or format.

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 the tool searches activity logs in Apollo workspace and lists specific types of activities returned (email sends, opens, clicks, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that search contacts, accounts, or sequences.

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?

The description only vaguely says 'useful for monitoring outreach performance' without providing explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_email_activities or search_outreach_emails. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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