List activities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral wrinkle – types=true flips the tool into listing activity types instead of activities – but that same fact is already documented in the schema, and nothing is said about pagination behavior or result shape.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the primary listing behavior is front-loaded before the types=true special case. Appropriately sized for the tool, though the tail sentence could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place return shape could be described, and it says nothing about what an activity object looks like or how pagination fields relate. It covers the core modes adequately but leaves an agent guessing at output structure.

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 coverage is 71%, so most parameters (since, until, page_size, page_number) are self-documented with format and bounds. The description only gestures at record scoping ('for a record'), without clarifying how parent_id and parent_type combine, which is the one underspecified pair left to both schema and text.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (activity), enumerates the activity kinds (notes, emails, calls, meetings, stage changes), and covers both scoping modes (single record vs account-wide date range). It implicitly contrasts with the write-side sibling log_activity, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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 two usage modes – per-record or account-wide in a date range – which gives some context. However, it names no alternatives (e.g., log_activity for writing) and states no conditions or exclusions that would tell an agent when to pick this over a sibling search tool.

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