get_contact_activities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves activities but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond parameters, or what happens if the contact ID is invalid. This is inadequate for a tool with mutation-like data access.

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 a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the core purpose efficiently. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'activities' entail (e.g., types, structure), how results are returned, or error handling, leaving gaps for the agent to operate effectively with this data retrieval tool.

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 100%, with clear parameter documentation in the input schema (contact_id, limit, page). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'contact_id' targets a specific contact, which is already covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics effectively.

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 action ('Get') and target resource ('activities for a specific contact'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_lead_events' or 'get_lead_statuses' that also retrieve activity-like data, missing specificity about what types of activities are included (e.g., calls, emails, tasks).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid contact ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_lead_events' for lead-specific activities, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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