get_activities_by_date

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions default behaviors for start_date and end_date, which is useful. However, it does not specify what the response looks like, whether results are sorted, or any limitations (e.g., max results, date validation). It provides some behavioral context but not comprehensive transparency.

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 concise and well-structured. The purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by a clear argument list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no technical jargon or 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?

For a tool with 3 parameters and a low schema coverage, the description covers the essential usage aspects: date range, optional type filter, and defaults. It is largely complete, though minor gaps exist (e.g., behavior when start_date is after end_date, case sensitivity of activity_type, or explicit return format). Given the presence of an output schema, these gaps are acceptable.

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 must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining the YYYY-MM-DD format, the default values (30 days ago and today), and providing concrete examples of valid activity_type values. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's bare nullable strings.

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 retrieves activities between two dates with optional type filtering. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the date-range scope distinguishes it from siblings like get_recent_activities and get_activity_details. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need activities within a custom date range and optionally by activity type. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it provides clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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