get_activity

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description adds only the 'compact, citation-centered' return characteristic. It omits details like not-found behavior, but the presence of an output schema lowers the burden on the description.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the operation, scope, key output characteristic, and required identifier without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only fetch with a robust annotation set and an output schema, the description is adequate. It could add a note about the behavior when no activity matches, but that is a minor gap given the structured context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only place explaining the parameter: it identifies activity_id as an OSIRIS ID that must match exactly. This adds real semantic guidance beyond the bare schema type 'string'.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource: one activity selected by its exact OSIRIS ID. The qualifiers 'compact' and 'citation-centered' distinguish it from search_activities and list-style siblings, so an agent can tell which tool to call.

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?

It makes the triggering condition explicit: the caller must already have an exact OSIRIS ID, and the tool returns a single result. It does not explicitly name search_activities as the alternative for fuzzy lookup, but the exact-ID condition is clear enough context.

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