compare_activities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It goes beyond a basic statement by disclosing that deltas are calculated within the tool, that a plain-language pace verdict is included, and that positive numbers mean slower, which is a common point of confusion. This is genuinely helpful behavioral context.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter definitions and then a key behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool is simple (two integer ids) and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, parameters, and behavior (including the sign convention), which fully equips an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's Args section is the only source of meaning for id_a and id_b. It provides clear, sufficient semantics: 'First activity id' and 'Second activity id.' While minimal, it is adequate for a simple two-id comparison and adds value beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 first sentence, 'Compare two activities side by side, with the differences computed,' clearly names the verb, the resource, and the tool's distinctive output. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_activity_detail or list_activities by emphasizing comparison and computed deltas.

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 implies the tool should be used when a side-by-side comparison with computed differences is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or exclude other scenarios. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions like 'use get_activity_detail for a single activity.'

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